On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:21 PM, John Hudson <tiro@tiro.com> wrote: > I agree that they shouldn't need to, but I'm interested in having a standard > way to do so if automated grapheme identification fails e.g. because the > software has insufficient or inaccurate information about the language in > question. Also, I expect there to be variation in typographic preference > among language user who, for instance, include digraphs (trigraphs, etc.) as > letters in their alphabets. I agree on the importance of manual fallback in this case.Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 16:43:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:39 UTC