On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > This is something that UTC should clean up because C1 is obsolete. In fact, > UTC just took that action when they met a couple of weeks ago: Wow, that's great news for me. I am currently very involved with my studies and other projects, so I failed to stay current with post 3.0 changes to the standard:( I again have to say that I'm sorry for the amount of traffic my simple oversight has caused on this list. -- Gruss, Tobias ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tobias Hunger The box said: 'Windows 95 or better' [EMAIL PROTECTED] So I installed Linux. -------------------------------------------------------------------
- Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate s... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... David Starner
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... P. T. Rourke
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... DougEwell2
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Tobias Hunger
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... William Overington
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Peter_Constable
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Kenneth Whistler
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Tobias Hunger
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Kenneth Whistler
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Paul Keinanen
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Joel Rees
- Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Su... Joel Rees

