Re: Is 879,309 enough?

From: John H. Jenkins (jenkins@apple.com)
Date: Tue Nov 06 2001 - 11:02:48 EST

Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Is 879,309 enough?"
In reply to: Kenneth Whistler: "Is 879,309 enough?"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Next in thread: Rick McGowan: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Monday, November 5, 2001, at 06:35 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:

> So unless we seriously up the encoding pace next year, I'm afraid
> we might not make our next millennium deadline to use all of the
> available code points.
>

Ah, but you should never underestimate the power of the Force. Remember
that the IRG is *already* looking to adding some 60,000 ideographs for
Extension C.

==========
John H. Jenkins
jenkins@apple.com
jenkins@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/

Previous message: Kenneth Whistler: "Is 879,309 enough?"
In reply to: Kenneth Whistler: "Is 879,309 enough?"
Next in thread: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Next in thread: Rick McGowan: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
Reply: Michael Everson: "Re: Is 879,309 enough?"
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 : Tue Nov 06 2001 - 12:10:17 EST