Windows keyboard restrictions

Marcel Schneider charupdate at
Sat Aug 8 15:57:25 CDT 2015

On 08 Aug 2015, at 19;45, Doug Ewell  wrote:

> Now that I know Andrew is the PM for MSKLC ¹,

Probably Mr Glass wasn't Mr Kaplan's boss, so he is to overtake a legacy without having been involved in its generating. I didn't well notice the chronological relationship, so I asked questions whose answers could need to search the archives.---

> and can answer Marcel's questions (publicly or privately) with authority,

Mr Kaplan too is authoritative. The difference might be that Mr Glass has actually access to all the needed documentation.

> I'll duck out of this thread.

You're not supposed to. But in any case, I would like to thank you for all you brought in into this thread. It has been very enriching and brought some insight I wouldn't have got.

> ¹ I'm glad to hear that there is such a person. I was afraid the project 
> had been left to die.

Indeed there seems to be like a malediction upon the MSKLC. The uppermost problem now is that reputations are linked to the low limit of ligatures length. Supposed the low limit is untrue, then Mr Glass can hardly answer these questions publicly. If he agrees to do so privately, I'll be bound by a secret and will be hindered in providing help for my eventual future keyboard drivers. I don't know how to get out of trouble. If I write on a web page that we can have up to 16 UTF-16 code units per ligature, there can always be somebody starting up who's telling that's wrong and my drivers were a hack. Probably I do end up wishing there would never have been an MSKLC. At least we might think that possibly there is no update because 2.0 would have stuck with that low limit.

We hope there will be enough solutions for all Unicode implementations.

Best regards,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list