Doug Ewell wrote:
> I'm probably taking this a bit too seriously, but I remember a big,
> heated debate about encoding these characters in which some high Unicode
> guru assured us they were not intended for the use to which Mark just
> put them.
That was the point about my complaint that _n_,
Mark Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The best way I find to think of UCS-2 at this point is *not*
> (𝑛𝑜𝑡) another encoding, but rather simply a
^
> shorthand for a particular supported subset of UTF-16. In that way, it
> is like other subsets: for example, I can
2 matches
Mail list logo
