Re: Obsolete characters

From: Mark Davis (mark.edward.davis@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:39:48 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Obsolete characters"

    I agree - that would be a better term.

    Mark

    On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 21:07, Christopher Fynn <chris.fynn@gmail.com>wrote:

    > On 16/01/2009, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:
    >
    > > On 15 Jan 2009, at 18:12, Mark Davis wrote:
    >
    > >> According to the information I have (extracting from UAX31 and UTF39
    > >> plus some heuristics on Unicode subheaders), the following are
    > >> archaic/obsolete characters (that is, not in customary modern use).
    >
    > > Not in customary modern use BY WHOM? By Japanese Telcos? By the
    > > International Phonetic Association? By Middle English scholars? By
    > > Nordicists? By the New York Times?
    >
    > "Archaic" would be better than "Obsolete".
    >
    > - C
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:43:44 CST