On 2003.07.01, 15:09, Pim Blokland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ? as a character in Unicode at all,
> but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when refining the
> rules, to deprecate it practically.
Food for thought: How would you compare U+0133 ("ij" digraph) with
U+044B (cyrillic "y", "yery")?
Consider that the latter also consists graphically of two separate
letters: U+044A (hard sign) and U+0456 (old "i") -- though the first
looks rather like U+044C (soft sign). This is an obvious difference,
but everything else seems quite comparable. Except nobody in this list
is making a big fuss about having included U+044B in the standard was
such a bad idea... ;-)
-- ____.
Ant�nio MARTINS-Tuv�lkin, | ()|
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |####|
R. Laureano de Oliveira, 64 r/c esq. |
PT-1885-050 MOSCAVIDE (LRS) N�o me invejo de quem tem |
+351 934 821 700 carros, parelhas e montes |
http://www.tuvalkin.web.pt/bandeira/ s� me invejo de quem bebe |
http://pagina.de/bandeiras/ a �gua em todas as fontes |
