Re: Dutch IJ, again

From: Pim Blokland (pblokland@planet.nl)
Date: Sat May 24 2003 - 13:11:20 EDT

Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: PUA glyphs in fonts (was: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?)"

Previous message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?"
In reply to: Curtis Clark: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Doug Ewell: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Curtis Clark schreef:

> In every other case, though, it would be an error,
> which en-us MS Word would automatically correct. :-)

The Dutch version of MS-Word doesn't understand about i+j either: it
"corrects" IJver to Ijver.
Presumably this was done to force us into using U+0133...

Pim Bloikalnd

Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: PUA glyphs in fonts (was: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?)"
Previous message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: Is it true that Unicode is insufficient for Oriental languages?"
In reply to: Curtis Clark: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Next in thread: Doug Ewell: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Reply: Doug Ewell: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 24 2003 - 13:52:51 EDT