• To: Rob Griffin <Rob.Griffin@o...>
• Subject: Re: Supporting Unicode
• From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 06:14:43 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: jim.theriot@p..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4F4C90289342D511A1CA00C00D0129D4F9A6FF@o...> fromRob Griffin at "Dec 21, 2001 09:52:27 am"

Rob Griffin scripsit:

> - the Unicode standard doesn't define a glyph for them

The glyphs in the Unicode book are informative, not normative; you can substitute
any other glyph that doesn't destroy the meaning ("b" would be a losing
glyph for LATIN CAPITAL LETTER A, for example).

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan@c...
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

• References:
  • RE: Supporting Unicode
    • From: Rob Griffin <Rob.Griffin@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python,etc ?
• Next by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Supporting Unicode
• Next by thread: RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread