=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_v=2E_L=F6wis=22?= <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > > Your specification was "For Unicode, whatever people agree!" > > I would not call that "Unicode-based". Can we drop this, please? I am happy to agree that I was being unclear (it is a common failing of mine), but I did provide the specification I coded. Specifically, and in full, I said: For Unicode, whatever people agree! I use the criterion that it has a defined category that doesn't start with 'C' - which is what I think that most people will accept. That is equivalent to the definition you gave. Regards, Nick Maclaren, University of Cambridge Computing Service, New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England. Email: nmm1 at cam.ac.uk Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4