Michael Everson wrote (on [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
At 08:56 -0400 2001-05-16, Martin Heijdra wrote:
There was a photo in Sunday's New York Times. The long article (more
informative than the one cited here), but not the photo, is
on its Web site.
It was a seal with 4 signs.
Which you are
At 10:34 +0200 2001-05-17, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/13/science/13LOST.html?searchpv=site03pagewa
nted=all
In order to read it, one has to register and get an id password. (Typical
of our age: our privacy is violated even just for reading a newspaper!)
As if I
From: Marco Cimarosti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
I wanted to forward it to these mailing lists, but the NYT
copyright notice
is quite clear in that articles can only be downloaded for
private use.
Hmmm - the NYT is based in the United States, where copyright laws
have an
I know that all this is very OT, but I guess that the kind of people on
Unicode List is very interested, so this is what a well-known expert said on
another mailing list.
Peter T. Daniels wrote (at [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 17 May 17 2001 14:34):
[...]
There is *absolutely no* warrant for thinking
Hi,
If one were to need to pick Katakana versus Hiragana and fold one into the
other (say to let people match a word or sentence in any of them), is there
one that is preferrable to the other? I think that some Katakana have no
Hiragana equivalents, does that mean that it's always easier to go
Mike Ayers wrote:
Hmmm - the NYT is based in the United States, where copyright
laws
have an explicit exemption for academic usage.
Ah, but it isn't the copyright that is the problem here, though Marco used
that term. It is the license agreement that one agrees to in order to
access
I seem to recall not long ago hearing of some machine architechtures that
have used large bytes, i.e. high number of bits per byte. I think at some
point I heard mention of a 36-bit byte, but one of my colleagues questioned
that (he once worked with a 36-bit architecture, but says it was actually
Peter Constable [EMAIL PROTECTED] asks on Thu, 17 May 2001
15:39:02 -0500 about historical byte sizes 8 bits.
I worked on, and co- managed, a DEC TOPS-20 KL-10 system for 12 years,
until its retirement in the Fall of 1990. I recall it with great
fondness, but that is another long off-topic
Peter,
IBM defines a bytes as the least addressable amount of storage. However,
once we are talking about wide bytes usually the storage is addressed as
words even though the storage in the word can not be further sub-addressed.
This seems to have started with the IBM 360 series. For example
Line break is not a character. It is number thirteen, though, isn't it?
$B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
Life is assuredly better today when word sizes, other than on some
embedded processors, are now uniformly multiples of 8 bits, and
characters are numbered starting from 0.
On Thu, 17 May 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I seem to recall not long ago hearing of some machine architechtures
that have used large bytes, i.e. high number of bits per byte. I
think at some point I heard mention of a 36-bit byte, but one of my
colleagues questioned that (he once worked
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Can anyone clarify for me how big a byte has ever been? (If you could
identify the particular hardware, that would be helpful.)
On the 36-bit PDP-10 architecture, a byte could be any size from 1 to 36
bits. ASCII was commonly stored in 5 7-bit bytes with an extra
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 03:39:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Can anyone clarify for me how big a byte has ever been? (If you could
: identify the particular hardware, that would be helpful.)
On DEC-10, with a 36-bit word, a byte was anywhere between 1 and 36
bits. They typically packed
The UTF-8 signature discussion appears every few months on this list,
usually as a religious debate between those who believe in it and those who
do not. Be forewarned, my religion may not match yours. :-)
Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
For UTF-8 there is no need to have a BOM, as there is only
14 matches
Mail list logo
