Re: Erratum in Unicode book

From: Richard Cook (rscook@socrates.berkeley.edu)
Date: Sun Jul 08 2001 - 21:05:47 EDT

Previous message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "How far afield can we go? (was Re: Re: Erratum in Unicode book)"
In reply to: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Next in thread: James Kass: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Next in thread: B: "FW: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Maybe reply: B: "FW: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Maybe reply: B: "Re: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Reply: James Kass: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Reply: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

"John H. Jenkins" wrote:
>
> It is on occasion something of an art figuring out the correct
> radical/stroke position for a character in this kind of an index, sad
> to say.

I'd say, when 2 radicals are possible, put it under both. When 3, well
... you probably get the idea ...

Previous message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "How far afield can we go? (was Re: Re: Erratum in Unicode book)"
In reply to: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Next in thread: James Kass: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Next in thread: B: "FW: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Maybe reply: B: "FW: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Maybe reply: B: "Re: Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Reply: James Kass: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Reply: John H. Jenkins: "Re: Erratum in Unicode book"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Jul 08 2001 - 21:58:56 EDT