Tue, 3 Jul 2001 11:19:05 +0100, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] pisze:
I would be glad if the resolution allowed UTF-8 and UTF-32 encoders and
decoders to not worry about surrogates at all. Please leave surrogate
issues to UTF-16.
But what if I want to put up a Web page in Etruscan?
UTF-8
Doug Ewell wrote:
Maybe not. This is the part I got wrong several weeks ago when we had this
discussion, and I hope my understanding is better now.
Transliteration is about building a reversible mapping between the original
(in this case, Japanese) sounds and a set of (in this case,
Writes Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Now available:
N2366 Proposal to add five phonetic characters to the UCS
by Richard S. Cook, Jr., and Michael Everson
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2366.pdf
N2361 Revised proposal to encode the Osmanya script in the
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!
Maybe we are just being weird here.
We ought to try to avoid twisting language, even if we do pretty much operate within
our own little techie world here.
Still haven't got the multiplication riddle solved, Mr. Kass?
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!
Because Shavian was "serious" and the other two were "fantastic", I guess.
No. This is no good. It is 04:57 and I have had zero sake. That is why I am crazy.
Just because more people know Saotome Ranma than your next-door neighbor, does that
mean Saotome Ranma comes before your next-door
On 07/03/2001 09:47:17 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
Unfortunately, the terms transcription and transliteration are
commonly
mixed up by non-experts, causing much confusion.
Please, somebody let me know if this is still not right.
See my comments on this and the URL for ISO definitions in my other
Peter Constable wrote:
It is this phenomenon which is the focus of
interest for me and my SIL colleagues: a single language that
is written by different portions of the language community
in different writing systems, particularly different writing
systems based on different scripts.
I
The problems connected to various uses of extended Roman characters, not
only in Slovene and Croatian, but in all the central-east European languages
(including Baltic, Turkic and Maltese) and also in linguistic transcriptions
(like Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic) is vast and complex.
As I
てんどうりゅうじ wrote:
We ought to try to avoid twisting language, even if we do pretty much operate within
our own little techie world here.
Indeed! Or, at least if we need a correct definition of
an English word, we should consult an English dictionary.
The web page cited by Mr. Constable is
paliga wrote:
As I could furtively note in the last Unicode 3.1 (well, pre-last, but could
not yet download 3.1.1.) many of the required characters are present there,
but indeed some should be added.
Which Eastern, central and southern-European characters do you find missing?
(please include
James Kass wrote:
Indeed! Or, at least if we need a correct definition of
an English word, we should consult an English dictionary.
The web page cited by Mr. Constable is simply misleading, unless
it were to be amended to clearly state for the purposes of
this and related documents...
- Original Message -
From: James Kass [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Unicode List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Unicode transliterations (and other operations)
Doug Ewell wrote:
Maybe not. This is the part I got wrong
I forgot something: *Please* use W3C's HTML validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/
best,
roozbeh
At 07:04 +0100 2001-07-04, David Starner wrote:
I'm curious why Shavian is up for standardization before Tengwar and Cirth.
They're all constructed scripts by authors (or at least for authors)
of the 20th century, the only big difference being that one was used
for one book and the others have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There have been some messages in this thread discussing whether something
is transliteration or transcription. On that point I have two comments:
first, ISO TC 46 has created definitions for these two terms that apply to
ISO standards under their purview; these
Lukas Pietsch wrote:
well, the English dictionaries give usages of words in everyday
language, and that's fine. But in their usage as technical terms,
the distinction between transcription and transliteration
(roughly along the lines of the
http://www.elot.gr/tc46sc2/purpose.html
Michael Everson wrote:
UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
next meeting of WG2.
Hi Michael,
I'm new to the idea that anyone would care to have Shavian encoded. Will
you enlighten me?
Best,
At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
next meeting of WG2.
Hi Michael,
I'm new to the idea that anyone would care to
Michael Everson wrote:
At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
next meeting of WG2.
Hi Michael,
I'm new to the
From: Richard Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
now, I know of other phonemic alphabets for English ... e.g., I think
Ben Franklin invented one, ... and I have one of my own. Are any of
these slated for encoding too?
Fictional scripts have been, are, and will likely continue to be a constant
source of
At 12:38 PM -0700 7/4/01, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
I would welcome evidence that there are in fact supplementary character
fonts that will be produced, and of course evidence that the user
community would actually have the software needed to use these fonts or
input methods to type the
From: John H. Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FWIW, there is a small but non-zero Shavian user community, and a
number of fonts are available, some of them very pretty.
Of this I have no doubt -- but this was true of Klingon, also. g
I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community are:
James Kass scripsit:
Does the vocabulary make things clearer or cause confusion?
If we need to distinguish between reversible script conversion
and irreversible script conversion, could we not simply say
reversible script conversion and so forth?
No, that does not capture the distinction.
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis
the
potential roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything
else.
Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
isn't true. Michael Everson is more than
Michael \(michka\) Kaplan scripsit:
As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis the
potential roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything else.
Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
isn't true. Michael Everson is more than
I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community are:
1) truly unhappy with their current fonts, and
2) eagerly awaiting encoding so that they can use supplementary character
fonts, and
3) will upgrade software as needed to accomplish #2
If you check out the Shavian group on
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
(Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of joining two trigrams as a
hexagram?)
No! :'-(( Please don't overpollute the ZWJ. There's already more semantics
to that codepoint that one can simply count on her/his fingers...
roozbeh
28 matches
Mail list logo
