On 19 September 2011 17:06, Andrew West <[email protected]> wrote: > On 19 September 2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton >> >> innherently beneficial to the public. That's why "In Re Shaw" isn't >> applicable to our application in the slightest. That case is about >> research into a new alphabet and I think most people would agree that >> the proposed research isn't likely to benefit the public (since it's a >> ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a >> million years). > > Um, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet> > > and implemented in Unicode in 2003: > > <http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013>
Being implemented in Unicode isn't really what I had in mind... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
