At 10:13 AM 6/25/01, Otto Stolz wrote: >Yet, I acknowledge the need to clearly mark humorous UTF propositions >for the unsuspicious. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enclose their >respective acronyms between \u202B and \u202C. This would be enough >hinting on the skewed nature of such suggestions while still indicating >their acronymic nature. Don't you think it would be better to use a stateless notation? I suggest using Plane 14 characters for the acronyms. -- Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/ Biological Sciences Department Voice: (909) 869-4062 California State Polytechnic University FAX: (909) 869-4078 Pomona CA 91768-4032 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) DougEwell2
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-... Edward Cherlin
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Marco Cimarosti
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Otto Stolz
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-... Curtis Clark
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Marco Cimarosti
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Elliotte Rusty Harold
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-... Lars Marius Garshol
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Marco Cimarosti
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) DougEwell2
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Yves Arrouye
- Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) てんどうりゅうじ
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Peter_Constable
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Carl W. Brown
- RE: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17) Carl W. Brown

