[r6rs-discuss] unicode (re comment #134)

[Thomas Lord]

John Cowan wrote:
> Thomas Lord scripsit:
>
>   
>> So what is your claim, here, John?  That between 3.0 and 4.1
>> the consortium changed its mind about internal use of
>> surrogates *but forget to tell anyone*?
>>     
>
> Is there some reason to cite a 7-year-old version of the Unicode
> Standard?  

Yes, and I think I explained it pretty well.

-t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20061217/d67c7a0d/attachment.htm