Re: Generic Base Letter

From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Sun Jun 27 2010 - 10:11:31 CDT

Next message: Tulasi: "Re: Latin Script"

Previous message: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
In reply to: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
Next in thread: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
Reply: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

As far as I know, at least from what the Principles and Procedures
document said, the inability of a particular version of a particular
product from a particular vendor to display a given glyph or glyph
sequence optimally is not justification to add a new character. I could
be wrong.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s

Next message: Tulasi: "Re: Latin Script"
Previous message: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
In reply to: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
Next in thread: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
Reply: Vincent Setterholm: "RE: Generic Base Letter"
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 : Sun Jun 27 2010 - 10:16:43 CDT