At 12:33 AM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
I find it fairly pointless to say that a font supports the variation
selection sequence U+03B8, U+FE00 if it does not provide a visual
distinction from U+03B8; and such a distinction should be based on the
entry description. Thus, of the
At 18:59 -0800 2002-01-26, John Hudson wrote:
What is the status of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N1846, the Proposal to
encode Ethiopic Extensions in the BMP...?
I see that (Eth.Ext.) is included in the BMP roadmap, but don't see
any other information on the Unicode site.
Daniel Yacob was to get me
At 17:54 -0500 2002-01-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my favorite parts of Bytext was the section on Emoticons. Certainly,
one thing that a serious competitor to Unicode must have is a rich set of
emoticons as single characters. I've always felt the UTC was badly out of
touch with the
I suppose I should also say that Daniel and I are in touch and
progress is being made, however slowly.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Michael Everson wrote,
MISTER YUCK, actually, should be added to Unicode. Isn't it used on
some poisonous cleaning products to warn children?
If so, perhaps it is a glyph variant of skull and crossbones
at U+2620 (☠).
Best regards,
James Kass.
At 06:56 -0800 2002-01-27, James Kass wrote:
MISTER YUCK, actually, should be added to Unicode. Isn't it used on
some poisonous cleaning products to warn children?
If so, perhaps it is a glyph variant of skull and crossbones
at U+2620 (òÝ).
I don't think it is. Indeed it was introduced
Daniel Yacob was to get me samples of the characters in use, so we
could update the proposal. That hasn't happened yet.
All good things come to those who wait./Hannibal
..and lots of good things are coming, however slowly ;)
Michael Everson wrote,
(MISTER YUCK)
If so, perhaps it is a glyph variant of skull and crossbones
at U+2620 ([Gratuitous UTF-8 Skull and Crossbones]).
I don't think it is. Indeed it was introduced precisely because
toddlers don't understand the skull and crossbones. They may both
James Kass wrote:
Seriously, the section in the bytext file about emoticons was
most enjoyable. Do people exchange information using emoticons?
MISTER YUCK: graphic or symbol?
Do people use exclamation marks to communicate ;-)
P. Andries
At 08:41 -0800 2002-01-27, James Kass wrote:
Seriously, the section in the bytext file about emoticons was
most enjoyable. Do people exchange information using emoticons?
Yes, but these are representable in plain text by Unicode now. ASCII!
MISTER YUCK: graphic or symbol?
Symbol.
--
Sorry, I guess not all mailers handle embedded graphics in HTML messages. I
posted it so that you could see the graphics, on
http://www.macchiato.com/utc/variation_selection/variation_selection_followu
p.htm
It is *not* exactly the same. I added and rearranged the concrete examples
at the very
At 06:56 AM 1/27/02, James Kass wrote:
If so, perhaps it is a glyph variant of skull and crossbones
at U+2620 (â ).
cheek contents=tongue amount=50%
I would argue against unification: the skull and crossed bones has
additional meanings beyond poison. Although the vision of Disney's
Pirates
At 10:00 -0800 2002-01-27, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
Sorry, I guess not all mailers handle embedded graphics in HTML messages.
In the first place they do not all handle the, though I saw it.
In the second place, Mark, you must remember that not all of us live
in the US where a local call is
It sounds like what you are saying, in concrete terms, is that Font #6
at the bottom of:
http://www.macchiato.com/utc/variation_selection/variation_selection_f
ollowup.htm
is conformant. If that is so, then we would have to have an additional
VS to select the closed form of the glyph. In that
Michael Everson wrote,
... graphic or symbol?
Symbol.
--
Because it signifies something specific while a graphic would be
subject to random interpretations.
Curtis Clark wrote,
I would argue against unification: the skull and crossed bones has
additional meanings beyond poison.
Unicode list policy is to NOT send attachments to the lists. Please
post to your server and send the URLs.
First, have we all servers?
Second, if it is a small attachment, the number of bytes transmitted to GO
there may well be greater than the number to send the bloody thing. How
about an
At 10:29 PM 1/27/2002 -0500, you wrote:
In a message dated 2002-01-27
18:51:35 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, have we all servers?
No. Assuming we all do is no better than assuming we all have
broadband or
T1 connections.
Yes, we do all have servers:
Yahoo is your
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Variation Selection
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 22:29:02 EST
In a message dated 2002-01-27 18:51:35 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, have we all servers?
No. Assuming we all do is no better
In a message dated 2002-01-27 18:51:35 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
First, have we all servers?
No. Assuming we all do is no better than assuming we all have broadband or
T1 connections.
Second, if it is a small attachment, the number of bytes transmitted to GO
there
Dear Little Ones:
Michael E suggested:
Unicode list policy is to NOT send attachments to the lists.
to which Doug E. replied:
I just sent a 500-byte attachment to the Unicode list
without any qualms.
The policy is rather to let the piranhas chew up people who send
huge attachments. Little
20 matches
Mail list logo
