At 16:12 03/03/02 +0100, R.C. Bakhuizen van den Brink [Rein] wrote:
>I'm not so sure whether I know what you mean...
>
>I do remember that in order to have both the zacute
>and zdot using the Alt+a =±, Alt+c= ć etc. Alt+z = zdot
>and Alt+x = zacute, since the zdot is most often used and
>the zacute rather scarcely...
No, I was talking about representing Polish **in ASCII**, which means the letters a to z and A to Z *only* (plus various symbols). I think you're talking about ways of **typing** z-dot and z-acute, which is interesting but not the same thing. Z-dot, z-acute, etc are not ASCII characters, so if you're typing them, you're not typing ASCII.
To clarify: an example of what I mean would be that people got together and decided "let's represent s-acute by <s'>, z-acute by <z'>, z-dot by <x>, l-slash by <q>,...". This sounds bizarre, but something like this did actually happen. You rapidly got used to reading the encoded stuff, as well.
What I am asking is - what *was* the exact coding used? Whatever variations it may have started with, convergent evolution rapidly took over and there was, in the end, only one coding that everyone used and understood. It certainly wasn't the same as the example I gave.
I hope this makes things clearer. I also hope that someone remembers the answer!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Sun Mar 03 2002 - 17:16:09 EST