Re: TECH (?) question: diacritics
| From: | Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Monday, November 5, 2007, 11:42 |
|---|
On 11/5/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> Unicode was designed to be round-trip compatible with every extant
> national/language-specific character set. Which means that every
> precomposed character that existed in any such character set was
> included in Unicode.
*nods*
> That was, in fact, the only reason for including *any* precomposed
> characters. The combining characters are more in the Unicode spirit.
Is it possible to assume the converse, then? "Every precomposed
character that exists in Unicode also existed in some character set
that formed the basis for Unicode"?
It's just that I had never heard of letters with double acute before,
and they're not in, for example, iso-8859-2 or even Windows-1250.
Though I suppose there are more character sets than those.
Any idea whether it's possible to find out which character set(s)
prompted the inclusion of a given character?
Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>
Reply