Re: TECH (?) question: diacritics
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Monday, November 5, 2007, 12:22|
On 11/5/07, Philip Newton <philip.newton@...> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> > 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.
But they *are* in ISO-8859-2. Hexadecimal D5 and F5 are uppercase and
lowercase O with double acute, while DB and FB are the versions based
on the letter U. And as I said, only O and U are present in
precomposed double-acute characters.
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>