Peter Kirk scripsit: > >* Michael Everson's and Roozbeh Pournader's provisional PUA assignments > >for ARABIC PASHTO ZWARAKAY and AFGHANI SIGN, two legitimate characters > >that cannot be represented in Unicode by any other means. > > > Why not, may I ask, as a newcomer to this list? Is there some technical > reason, or a political one?
By "cannot be represented" he means "have not as yet been represented", that's all. They'll surely be represented in the next version of Unicode or so. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words"
