<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 23 Sep 2008, at 11:20, Tracey, Niall wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>If you are genuinely saying that you are proposing to call the tag 1959acad and accept standards defined before and after that year, then your choice of number is worse than meaningless -- it is misleading. That is insupportable.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't believe so. Yury has made it clear that "1959" is iconic for the actual users of the orthography.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; "></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; ">Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com/">http://www.evertype.com</a></span></div></div><div apple-content-edited="true"> </div><br></body></html>