Kenneth Whistler <kenw at sybase dot com> wrote: > And Eki should be notified that the statement on the site about > the barred o's is incorrect.
They've got an interesting little site there, with lots of information pertaining to both Unicode and 8-bit encodings, but some misinformation as well. In particular, I wish they wouldn't perpetuate the myth that certain letters-with-diacritic "aren't encoded" when they just need to be composed. Unexplained blanket statements like: "Yoruba precomposed characters were rejected by the Unicode Technical Committee in 1996." give the wrong impression altogether. >> 3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from >> my memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to >> encode them as separate characters (rather than with combining >> descenders on "n"). > > Yes. But why, oh why, do people do this to themselves, instead of > just making use of the existing Latin letters for this: 014A/014B ? > > This is another recipe to wait years for their orthography to be > supported by conventional software. Amen. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
