>In fact, in this particular case, if I recall, the distinctions were
>probably considered to be good practice, and not something to be mapped
>away. XCCS was often a *model* for early Unicode, rather than a character
>encoding that forced the grudging inclusion of many icky "characters"
>that we would have preferred didn't have to be there.
Out of curiousity, is there documentation on XCCS available anywhere?
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
