Bill Poser <billposer2 at gmail dot com> wrote:
> No, I was contrasting the behaviour of s followed by U+0332, for which
> there is no precomposed letter, with U+1E95, which is the precomposed
> equivalent of z followed by U+0332.
But U+1E95 is the precomposed equivalent of z followed by U+0331.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell Received on Tue Oct 09 2012 - 12:51:49 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Oct 09 2012 - 12:51:50 CDT