Re: "default ignorable" posts

From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 10:12:09 EDT

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"

Previous message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)"
In reply to: William Overington: "Re: "default ignorable" posts (was Re: Is it true that Unicode isinsufficientfor Oriental languages?)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

William Overington wrote:

> However, it might indeed be that there is no interest in my
code point
> allocations, yet that is the chance which I, as an inventor,
need to take
> when trying to follow the publication option to get an
invention
> implemented. It worked for my telesoftware invention however,
as that
> invention is now at the centre of digital interactive
television systems and
> the word telesoftware is in the Oxford English Dictionary.

What's inventive about privately allocating some PUA
code-points???

Next message: Pim Blokland: "Re: Dutch IJ, again"
Previous message: Marco Cimarosti: "RE: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)"
In reply to: William Overington: "Re: "default ignorable" posts (was Re: Is it true that Unicode isinsufficientfor Oriental languages?)"
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 : Wed May 28 2003 - 11:18:23 EDT