Christoph Päper asked:
I recently learned in news:de.etc.sprache.deutsch that there has been a
tradition (in handwritten text more than in print) of writing mm as only
one m with a macron above. I can't find any such character in Unicode,
just U+1E3F and U+1E41.
You could of course build
Vadim,
I have a problem with creating collation key for U+2047 (double question
mark).
Explicit collation keys for this symbol is absent in allkeys.txt.
allkeys.txt in the current version of the Unicode Collation Algorithm
is based on the Unicode *3.1* repertoire. This can be seen in
the
BTW, the introductory sentence on page 360 of TUS 3 seems strange. It
says that IPA includes basic Latin letters and a number of Latin
letters from other blocks and then puts four Greek letters in the list!
Should this be changed to something like IPA includes basic Latin
letters and a
My first answer to my correspondent was just use Roman h.
That would be my suggestion, too. It is available now -- it matches
current practice, and requires no further action.
A program that was sorting text, or trying to determine what script
a word was written in, would get confused by
Peter Lofting asked:
Presumedly the present proposal of 900+ stacks is a maturation of the
same system. And the claim for universality is based on it being able
to typeset everything they have published to-date.
It is based on the Founders system software, as Michael mentioned.
The
Marco commented:
Another key point, IMHO, is verifying the following claim contained in the
proposal document:
Tibetan BrdaRten characters are structure-stable characters widely
used in education, publication, classics documentation including Tibetan
medicine. The electronic data
Doug, seconding a suggestion by Marco, wrote:
I agree
that a multilingual Unicode glossary should be assembled (possibly as a
volunteer project) and officially endorsed by the Unicode Consortium, so
users and vendors will be on common terminological ground.
In general, I favor such an
Christian Wittern asked:
Leaving aside the red light that flashed in my head on the notion of
the W3C recommending PUA (for interchange?), I was wondering about the
notion of PUA characters being by Unicode defaults treated as
ideographs. Is there a canonical reference for this?
Just
Dean Snyder asked:
...
What it comes down to is the fact that for historic scripts in
particular, there are no defined criteria that would enable us
to simply *discover* the right answer regarding the identity of
scripts. To a certain extent, the encoding committees need to
make arbitrary
Rick investigated, and came up with:
In a specific case, Andy asked about Khanda Ta, and pointed to a WG2
resolution that contradicts the Unicode FAQ on the same topic. I looked up
a paper listing an action item as follows, taken from document
Doug Ewell answered:
Thomas Lotze thomas dot lotze at uni dash jena dot de wrote:
Why is it that while there are both uppercase and lowercase roman
numerals in the Unicode character set (in the Number Forms range), no
lowercase arabic numerals (old-style or text figures) are encoded? If
Andrew West wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 02:34:18 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
In point of fact,
people for centuries have been borrowing back and forth between
Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic in particular, so that in some respects
LGC is a kind of metascript and should be treated
James Kass said:
How do these differences apply to Unicode plain text and the
Plane 14 tags? For example, it was noted that the ideographic full
stop is centered in Chinese text but sits on the baseline (and isn't
centered) in Japanese text.
This claim about ideographic periods is untrue.
Michael Everson asked:
At 13:37 -0800 2002-11-18, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Go to any Japanese newspaper. There is no required change of
typographic style when Chinese names and placenames are mentioned
in the context of Japanese articles about China.
Go to any Chinese newspaper
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
How about a multilingual newspaper?
What of a multilingual newspaper?
Take a hypothetical instance of a German/English newspaper,
which
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new characters,
William Overington asked:
As the Unicode Consortium invited public comments on the possible
deprecation of plane 14 tag characters, will the Unicode Consortium be
making a prompt public statement of the result of the review as soon as the
present meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee is
David Hopwood said:
Note that if deprecation implies no longer treating these characters
as ignorables,
It would not.
The only character *property* implication that deprecation of
Plane 14 language tags (or any other characters) would have is
the requirement that they gain the Deprecated
Perhaps it
is time to think of three other words starting with B, O, M that make a
better explanation.)
Bollixed Operational Muddle ;-)
--Ken
Dominikus Scherkl replied to Markus:
My other suggestion (and the main reason to call the proposed
charakter source failure indicator symbol (SFIS)) was intended
especaly for mall-formed utf-8 input that has overlong encodings.
This is a special, custom form of error handling - why
Michael asked:
My eyes have glazed over reading this discussion. What am I being
asked to agree with?
Here's the executive summary for those without the time to
plow through the longer exchange:
Marco: It is o.k. (in a German-specific context) to display
an umlaut as a macron (or a
Hm, what if I want to make, say, snow capped Devanagari glyphs for my
hiking company in Nepal? Shouldn't I assign them to Unicode code points?
That's what Private Use code positions are for.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Um, Michael, I think
Raymond Mercier asked:
Isn't i18n rather off-list ?
Neither Sarasvati nor the self-styled list police have objected.
While historical origin discussions are OT, they do seem to have
an interested following on the Unicode list.
Perhaps more to the point, Unicode implementations are all about
Sorry to appear the curmudgeon, but
^^
recte: c8n
--K1n
Mark,
Mark, I am curious why you find this term so distasteful? Is it the
algorithm itself or just a general objection to acronyms and the like? Or
something else entirely?
I find this particular way of forming abbreviations particularly ugly and
obscure. It is also usually unnecessary;
W0e n3r u2d t1e g1d-a3l, g3y a1d o5e a10n i18n, h5r!
What I don't understand, since these a10n's are in such
widespread use among programmers and character encoders,
is why they don't use h9l, as in i12n, lan, and gbn?
--K1n
BTW, these aan's are not only o5e, they are also o4e, but
Elliotte Harold asked:
The Unicode data files at
http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/ do not include a mapping
for ISO-8859-11, Thai. Is there any particular reason for this?
Just that nobody got around to submitting and posting one.
Since there was a lot of discussion about
Keld responded:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 02:47:42PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Mark Davis scripsit:
Those mnemonics in (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1345.html) are pretty
useless in practice, as well as being misnamed. From Websters: assisting or
intended to assist memory. So what
John Cowan responded to Rick:
(BTW, I agree with Mark about those ISO 14755 [recte: RFC 1345]
abbreviations... They aren't
very mnemonic. Many people have the charts available, so there is no
great advantage to using mnemonics over simply using numbers or palettes.)
They are easy
Martin Kochanski asked:
I want to post a Cardbox database on our Web site (Cardbox is
the database that we sell) that contains a list of all
Unicode characters: hexadecimal code, decimal code,
character, and character name (eg. GREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA
WITH TONOS).
The first
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
The same should be true for the £ sign.
But unluckily, for some obscure reason, Unicode thinks that currencies
called pound should have one bar and be encoded with U+00A3, while
currencies called lira should have two bars and be encoded with U+20A4.
Barry Caplan wrote [further morphing this thread]:
I also think (but I could be wrong) that ye is not one
of the characters in the famous Buddhist poem that uses
each of the kana once and only once, and establishes a
de facto sorting order by virtue of being the only such poem.
OTOH, I
Tex,
3) The language information used to be derived
dubiously
from code page and is
missing with Unicode, and architecture needs to accomodate a better
model for bringing language to font selection.
The archetypal situation is for CJK, and in particular J,
where language choice correlates
William Overington asked:
While on the topic, how would the following sequence be displayed please?
U+0074 U+0361 U+0073 ZWJ U+0307
Just like:
U+0074 U+0361 U+0073 U+0307
The sequence U+0073, ZWJ, U+0307 could request a ligature of the
s and the dot-above, but since it is unlikely that
Peter responded:
A document would contain a sequence such as follows.
U+2604 U+0302 U+20E3 12001 U+2460 London U+2604 U+0302 U+20E2
You could just as easily have used
S C=12001London/S
or
S C=12001 P1=London/
or even:
cometcircumflex messageId=12001London/cometcircumflex
if
Charles Cox suggested:
Might there be a case for defining an invisible combining enclosing mark
(ICEM), which is otherwise identical to the enclosing circle? Then, if I've
understood the conventions correctly the sequence:
U+0074 U+034F U+0073 ICEM U+0311 U+0307 would give ts with a
Peter said:
This stuff *can* all be handled with appropriately designed
ligations in fonts, so there are options for display:
U+0074, U+0361, U+0073, U+0307
==
maps via ligation table to:
{t-s-tie-ligature-with-dot-above} glyph
I would consider this an anomolous rendering.
William Overington asked:
In the discussion about romanization of Cyrillic ligatures I asked how one
expresses in Unicode the ts ligature with a dot above.
Regarding Ken's response to the Byzantine legal codes matter, it would
appear possible that the way that the ts ligature with a dot
The ALA-LC conventions are not the only alternatives available for
representation of Abkhaz and/or Khanty/Mansi data in romanization.
In fact, you can find such data on the web using alternative
romanizations. So it isn't as if the current gap in figuring out
precisely how, in Unicode, to
Ms. Hughes,
ISO/IEC 10646-1:2000, which is exactly correlated with the
Unicode Standard, Version 3.0, is available in French. You
can purchase a copy from ISO:
http://www.iso.ch/
(Go to the ISO Store section of the site and search for
the ISO number 10646.)
I don't know of any German
Markus Scherer responded:
Stefan Persson wrote:
This links to a different page on the same server:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html
That page contains a strange UTF-8 table:
...
The last two byte sequences are invalid.
Markus Kuhn's page shows the original ISO
Peter,
Here's my take on your questions.
The less clear cases involve b, d and g.
1) Lower case b with a horizontal stroke through the bowl (hereafter
b-stroke-bowl) is used in some phonetic traditions for voiced bilabial
fricative (beta, in IPA). The annotation for U+0180 (b with a
Robert Wheelock asked:
Recently, I read some messages saying that there're 3 new
double-wide overstruck accents are proposed for Unicode:
Umm. Well, they aren't double-wide and they aren't overstruck,
and their names are not:
035D: double-wide breve
035E: double-wide macron
035F:
[Resend of a response which got eaten by the Unicode email
during the system maintenance last week. Carl already responded
to me on this, but others may not have seen what he was
responding to. --Ken]
Proposed unknown and missing character representation. This would be an
alternate to method
William Overington inquired:
As many readers may know, the Unicode Technical Committee was due to start a
four day meeting yesterday at the Redmond, Washington State, USA campus of
Microsoft, that is, on 20 August 2002.
Here in England I am interested to know of what is happening and to
An interesting point for consideration is as to whether the following
sequence is permitted in interchanged documents.
U+FFF9 U+FFFC U+FFFA Temperature variation with time. U+FFFB
That is, the annotated text is an object replacement character and the
annotation is a caption for a
Doug (and Michael also):
What if I *want* to design an annotation-aware rendering mechanism?
Suppose I read Section 13.6 and decide that, instead of just throwing
the annotation characters away, I should attempt to display them
directly above (and smaller than) the normal text, the way
John Hudson mused:
Love the HOT BEVERAGE character, but where's the TALL LOWFAT SOYMILK MOCHA
FRAPPUCCINO? Come on guys, there's enough blank spaces in that block for
the entire Starbucks beverage menu, especially if you treat things like
EXTRA FOAM as a combining character.
Well,
William Overington teased us all unmercifully with:
It occurs to me that it is possible to introduce a convention, either as a
matter included in the Unicode specification, or as just a known about
thing, that if one has a plain text Unicode file with a file name that has
some particular
John Cowan asked:
Where does this strange beast come from?
Semitic transliteration practice, if I recall correctly.
Its name is LATIN SMALL LETTER
A WITH RIGHT HALF RING, and the right half ring is indeed above the a.
We don't have a RIGHT HALF RING ABOVE combining mark, so it only gets
This is my first posting to this list so please be gentle with me!
*pounces and begins to play with the little furry creature (gently)*
Can someone help me with this confusion as I am unsure how I should
structure these WITH CEDILLA characters in fonts I'm working on.
See TUS 3.0, pp.
James Kass asked:
Please note that both the UTC and WG2 have approved a new set
of combining double accents:
U+035D COMBINING DOUBLE BREVE
U+035E COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON
U+035F COMBINING DOUBLE LOW LINE
snip
Now, the question is, how long will it take for the fonts and
I want to be able to send a Blissymbol string with a gloss in English
or Swedish attached. Nothing to do with Japanese whatsoever.
Basically, as for all things annotational or interlineating, this
is an excellent application for markup.
--Ken
Michael,
At 14:16 -0700 2002-08-13, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
I want to be able to send a Blissymbol string with a gloss in English
or Swedish attached. Nothing to do with Japanese whatsoever.
Basically, as for all things annotational or interlineating, this
is an excellent application
Michael Everson (in training as a curmudgeon) harrumpfed ;-)
The Japanese national body was very clear about this, and was opposed
to these going into the standard unless such clarifications were made,
to ensure that these were not intended for plain text interchange
of furigana (or other
Tex asked:
But does the standard address their removal by receivers (or
intermediaries) , and does removing them include removing the contained
annotation?
Yes and yes. p. 326:
On input, a plain text receiver should either preserve all characters
Keld responded:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 11:44:40PM +0100, Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
Hm. But middle dot is not also a letter symbol. It's also used as a
bullet, a tab filling, even a box-drawing char. Shouldn't Unicode
provide a way to separate this duality?
· has
Michael asked:
At 12:11 -0700 2002-08-08, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Ah, but read the caveats carefully. The Unicode interlinear
annotation characters are *not* intended for interchange, unlike
the HTML4 ruby tag. See TUS 3.0, p. 326. They are, essentially,
internal-use anchor points
A propos of this long thread about display of combining macrons in
Middle English, morphing from tildes on vowels:
In Mozilla 2002072104, Windows XP, I get perfectly good overlines on
yagh (now). I'd be interested in seeing how it looked with the
combining macra.
Please note that both
Lest everyone go scrabbling off the deep end and drown on
this particular thread, I would like to point out the following
facts:
U+2FDF IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR
was accepted by the UTC on April 30, 2002. However, when the
proposal was taken into WG2 it met a wall of opposition led
Stefan wrote:
Many Japanese word processors already have that capability. HTML4 has
ruby tag exactly for that purpose.
And Unicode has characters for that purpose, too.
Unicode: U+FFF9 kanji U+FFFA furigana U+FFFB
HTML4: RUBYRD kanji /RDRT furigana /RT/RUBY
Roozbeh asked:
Expecting the compatibility decompositions to serve this purpose
effectively is overvaluing what they can actually do.
I would love to hear your opinion about what compatibility decompositions
*are* for, then. I feel a little confused here.
They are helpful annotations to
At 04:48 PM 02-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
... and some extreme case
orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
If I recall correctly, that one was a technical orthography
of Nama -- but I can't track down an online
As a clarification, here is a sample web page:
http://www.cardbox.com/missing.htm
The requirement is to be able to display the first paragraph of the
page in such a way that it makes sense in its reference to the text
on the rest of the page.
The character after the word this: in
Asmus wrote:
At 08:40 PM 7/30/02 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
a code-point that has no
character assigned to it (and is not likely to get one), e. g. U+03A2
No code point is safe.
True enough. But then I figure Plane 13 characters like
U+DEAD1 are pretty unlikely to be assigned to a
It's *much* easier -- and, in the long term, safer -- for them to
select from the extensive inventory of characters available in Unicode and
to avoid using ASCII punctuation characters with redefined word-building
semantics.
I don't get what you are saying here, why should people be
Keld wrote:
In Linux,
*Which* Linux? :-) Caldera OpenLinux, Corel Linux, Debian GNU/Linux,
Elfstone Linux, Libranet Linux, Linux-Mandrake, Phat Linux, Red Hat Linux,
Slackware Linux, Stampede GNU/Linux, Storm Linux, SuSE Linux, or TurboLinux?
Or for that matter another dozen international
One that occurs to me might be the Khoisan languages of Africa,
which I believe commonly use ! (U+0021) for a click sound.
This is almost exactly the same problem you are describing for Tongva.
U+01C3 LATIN LETTER RETROFLEX CLICK (General Category Lo) was
encoded precisely for this. It is
[Tex Texin]
Actually, (or so I have heard) it is God dwells in the details of our
work, I have seen it attributed to Einstein, more generally to shakers,
and others. So Ludwig might have been quoting others.
[Ken Whistler]
And the devil is in the details. Looking a bit at your
The correct Einsteinian German appears to be:
Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail (cf. http://www.benecke.com/einsteinprogramm.html)
(and there are German alternatives such as Gott lebt im Detail)
and the satanic alternate is:
Der Teufel liegt im Detail (very common, actually, but maybe just
Following up on several responses on this thread.
Mark Davis said:
A small correction to Ken's message:
The Unicode scalar value
definitionally excludes D800..DFFF, which are only code unit
values used in UTF-16, and which are not code points associated
with any
Lars Marius Garshol asked:
I'm trying to find out what an abstract character is. I've been
looking at chapter 3 of Unicode 3.0, without really achieving
enlightenment.
The term Unicode scalar value (apparently synonymous with code point)
seems clear. It is the identifying number assigned
Marion Gunn wrote:
The immediate attraction ang great advantage of Unicodes vision was its
simplicity/focus: after an unsteady and argumentative start, its
founders committed Unicode to the IMPLEMENTATION of10646, and became
very specific (loud) about not calling it a STANDARD (note to
Adam asked:
I have a very basic question. What would be the implementation differences
of diacritics marks in a font? For example, we'd consider:
U+00B4 acute accent
U+02CA modifier letter acute accent
U+0301 combining acute accent
What are the common recommendations regarding the
Suzanne responded:
Maybe Unicode is more of a shared set of rules that apply to
low level data structures surrounding text and its algorithms
then a character set.
Sounds like the start of a philosophical debate.
If Unicode is described as a set of rules, we'll be in a world of
Barry Caplan wrote:
At 01:27 PM 7/11/2002 -0400, Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
Unicode is a character set. Period.
Each character has numerous
properties in Unicode, whereas they generally don't in legacy
character sets.
Each character, or some characters?
For all intents and
Joe sent around a classic version of Waka waka bang splat,
but my favorite is a slightly pared-down version set
to music for a four-part round, lyrics by Fred Bremmer and
Steve Kroese, music by Melissa D. Binde:
http://www.roundsing.org/music/waka-waka.html
where you can listen to it in it's
Dan Oscarsson said:
NFD should not be an extension of ASCII. There are several spacing
accents in ASCII
that should be decomposed just like the spacing accents in ISO 8859-1
are decomposed.
All or none spacing accents should be decomposed.
In addition to the usage clarifications made by
Martin Heijdra asked:
The statement For example, in languages employing the Mongolian script,
sometimes a specific variant range of glyphs is needed for a specific
textual purpose for which the range of generic glyphs is considered
inappropriate could be taken to mean this solution.
Martin Kochanski waxed exuberantly:
I mention this because Unicode is the opposite of Procrustean.
There is no finer antidote to gloom and cynicism than leafing through the Unicode
Standard.
In what other computing book could you find a phrase such as In good Latvian
typography?
Or:
John Hudson wrote:
Mongolian variants *are* very confusing, and I'm not sure what the
best way to describe them is. Part of the problem is that there is
still some tension in the UTC regarding just how to define the affect
of the variation selectors.
Position A: A variation selector
Then there is the oft-cited Character Most Resembling a
Line Break:
MALAYALAM LETTER UU (U+0D0A)
Then in Extension B there are many, many weird and wonderful
candidates for strangest CJK characters. Some of my
personal favorites include:
U+26B99
U+20137
U+20572
U+2069C
U+2696E
With such
Michael,
Ken. Thanks for your response.
Hmm. I think I detect the invisible ironic smiley there.
Thanks for broadcasting my private, poke-in-the-ribs response
to you and Marco back to the public list. ;-)
As I said, the original might (assuming a syllabic structure and
assigning random
Michael,
At 10:58 -0400 2002-07-05, Patrick Rourke wrote:
There is also the question of what kind of text it represents: is it
a prose text, is it a catalogue of items (the other Aegean scripts
tempt one to suspect this), each item represented by an ideograph,
etc.?
Well if you look
One possibly interesting thing derived from the threads from hell
is the notion that the definition of character offered in the
various ISO JTC1/SC2 character encoding standards and TR's such
as the Character-Glyph Model (TR 15825) may be leading people astray
about what is appropriate to encode
David Hopwood wrote:
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
BTW, they always sold me that precomposed accented letters exist in Unicode
only because of backward compatibility with existing standards.
I don't get that argument. It is not difficult to round-trip convert between
NFD and a non-Unicode
David Hopwood responded to Michael Everson:
people just keep saying that markup exists, as if the very existence
of XML in some way precludes single code point colour codes and
single code point formatting codes and so on.
Yes, that is right. That is entirely right.
No it isn't.
Theodore wrote:
What is going to be done about the confusion generated from
having multiple ways to encode the same character?
For example, for filenames, OSX will encode an accented Roman
letter one way, while for filenames Windows will encode it the
other way. These kind of
Theodore,
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr15/ mentions both
composites and combining sequences.
But it doesn't tell us the difference. I know what a combining
sequence is. If I didn't know what a composite was, I'd guess it
was the same thing as a combining sequence.
See TUS
Suzanne,
Can people from the review committee give me some hard and fast rules for
when something is thrown out?
As Michael Everson indicated, the answer to this is probably not.
However, perhaps the most important thing for serious script
proposers to do, to see if what they are concerned
[*groans in the audience*]
I know, I know -- another contribution in the endless thread...
In re:
The Respectfully Experiment
I used it as evidence that ideas about what should not be
included in Unicode can change over a period of time as new scientific
evidence is discovered.
Having
James Kass said:
One problem with TR28 is that it is worded so that it appears to
be in addition to earlier guidelines.
It is. The way this works is as follows: The original decision
about the ZWJ as request for ligation was documented in the
Unicode 3.0.1 update notice. That documentation
Philipp said:
The most obvious and simple example for glyph colours with semantic
meaning that I can think of appears to be encoding characters for
national flags (something that might even be considered proposable).
As *characters*? Why?
What is this bug that people catch, which induces
At 03:03 AM 6/20/02 -0400, Tom Finch wrote:
I wish to propose sixteen consecutive digits for the purpose of displaying
hexadecimal values. [...] Has this been considered?
[David Starner]
I seem to recall that it has. The problem is, they're just new copies of
old characters. An
In view of the fact that some people are unwilling to let my
ideas be discussed in this forum upon their academic merit but simply use an
ad hominem attack almost every time I post (before many people can have the
chance to sit down and, if they wish, have a serious read of my ideas), when
Tom Finch said:
Hmm, so representing Devanagari digits is more important
than hexadecimal, which is used almost more than decimal
on the web?
I think you may be misconstruing the purpose of the character
encoding here.
If I want to represent the hexadecimal numbers 0x60DB 0x618A
in email
IOW, brevity's wit's soul.
Well-spoken, dear Polonius. But better to
Adorn the soul of wit so briefly put to us.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night is night, and time is time.
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time.
Adam asked:
How many characters does the current version of the Unicode Standard
enumerate?
95,156.
BTW: I think this information would be useful if it were always included in
the summary of earch revision.
Agreed. The total was listed in Unicode 3.1 (94,140), and you could
get the
Peter,
On 06/02/2002 05:40:05 AM Samphan Raruenrom wrote:
My opinion is that they should have been simplified, but that setting
the
bulk of them to 0 was a mistake and creates some significant problems
(which go a step beyond the questions you raise here).
Can you elaborate on this?
Rick Cameron asked:
The Unicode Standard 2.0 had a table in Appendix A that is, I think, just
what you're asking for. I can't find this table in the online version of TUS
3.0 (it's not very useful that the online index gives page numbers, when
there's no way to map a page number to the
401 - 500 of 750 matches
Mail list logo
