From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Reviews for lisp implementations
Date: 1999/04/20
Message-ID: <3133600396484611@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 468691379
References: <3714671D.136215D2@singnet.com.sg> <3715A6F9.51E830D0@simplex.nl> <3133160386747264@naggum.no> <37164EF3.F15982CB@simplex.nl> <epn2088xr7.fsf@harlequin.co.uk> <wk3e20ify6.fsf@ifi.uio.no> <7fa9eo$631$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3133358604132917@naggum.no> <u7iuau27uq.fsf@ebi.ac.uk> <wk4sme43re.fsf@ifi.uio.no> <371C5BAC.F56EFC96@simplex.nl>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Arthur Lemmens <lemmens@simplex.nl>
| Not that any of this has much to do with Lisp, but:
| 
| - U+00FF (LATIN SMALL LETTER Y DIAERESIS) is described in the Unicode
|   standard as being French, not Dutch.

  I said _from_ Dutch "ij".  it's an _imported_ character.  it is used in a
  bunch of names in Belgia that historically had "ij" in their name.

|   It also casts some doubt on Erik's explanation that it's "ij" written
|   together.

  it does?  so the fact that æ is a Danish and Norwegian letter casts doubt
  on its history of being imported from Latin as its a+e ligature, too?
  appreciate that the history of writing systems is not a couple years old.

| - The Unicode version of Dutch 'ij', which _is_ "ij" written together
|   and is probably what Erik had in mind, is U+0133.

  I probably had in mind what I wrote.  so do other people.  please assume
  this next time you feel an overpowering urge to tell people what they
  think.

#:Erik