For more than a year I have been so busy rebuilding my own company and
juggling community responsibilities and invalid care, that I have had
little time to keep up with Unicode/10646 club activities.
I also have US spam of the nastiest kind running at over 80% of my
e-mails, so I tend to avoid
At 12:25 +0100 2002-07-24, Marion Gunn said:
I know ISO/IEC 10646 can not be made any exception to ISO rules
which demand a review every 5 years,
ISO/IEC 10646 won't need a formal 5-year review, because it has been
under constant development.
and I would like to know what stage it is at now,
1) I wish to go on record, once and for all, that any postings of mine
to this (or any other) mailing list represent my own opinion and not
that of my employer or employers either past, present, or future, or
any other person natural or juridical, except by a happy coincidence.
The
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Marion Gunn wrote:
I also still want to know about implementaions (Unicode may not consider
its brief to cover implemenations, the companies which combine to make
the consortium sure do, and it would be nice of them to say how many
such implementations are now
John Cowan wrote,
However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding)
What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?)
Best regards,
James Kass.
Arsa Kenneth Whistler:
...
This can easily be found by checking current resolutions of WG2.
Those are also a matter of public record, being open (unlocked)
SC2 documents. The latest are the resolutions from the Dublin WG2
meeting:
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/open/02n3614.pdf
...
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote:
However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding)
What about Gummo? (Or,... Karl? or... Deutsche ?)
Stretch?
-Doug
Arsa Doug Ewell:
...
Unicode does not create, or even certify or register, implementations of
its standard. I have been paying attention to Unicode for 10 years now,
at least casually, and I have never seen anything from the Unicode
Consortium that gave me the impression they were in the
At 10:28 -0600 2002-03-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI, Lincom Europa has a new book on written Oirat. See
http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-804.html
and
http://home.t-online.de/home/LINCOM.EUROPA/nl.htm
Sigh. My copy arrived today. By Written Oirat the author Attila
Rákos means the
At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: The standard disclaimer
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote:
However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding)
What
I think that it's very wise of the Unicode Consortium not to certify or
officially promote any particular implementation. After all, some
programmers are more skilled than others, and some implementations may
not be of the quality one might wish. Or what if a member company
produced a decent
Marion Gunn asked:
Please let me try again to ask about progress made, in that year,
in re Unicode/10646
The minutes of UTC meetings are a matter of public record and recent
minutes are on-line. So you can find out what was discussed at UTC meetings
back to 1999. Please see:
It would be intereting and helpful to be able to find out if a product
is Unicode-compliant before purchasing it. There are various test
institutions out there that perform that work for other standards. I
don't think it would be Unicode.org's responsibility to provide for the
certification, to
John Hudson wrote:
At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: The standard disclaimer
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote:
However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Tex Texin wrote:
John Hudson wrote:
At 08:41 AM 24-07-02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
from:Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
subject: Re: The standard disclaimer
James Kass jameskass at worldnet dot att dot net wrote:
However, just
At 11:24 AM 7/24/02 -0700, David Possin wrote:
It would be intereting and helpful to be able to find out if a product
is Unicode-compliant before purchasing it.
The problem is too broad to be neatly solved. It's not like compliance
to the Ada standard, where you can just write a bunch of test
Tex Texin tex at i18nguy dot com wrote:
Hall?
Check?
Re- ?
Water?
No, too late. John Hudson already won this round, for finding a way to
bring it back on topic. (Turns to John and bows, Pat Morita style.)
Congratulations, master.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
Marion Gunn wrote,
You might enjoy a favourite of mine: _The HH Guide to the Galaxy_
(the 4th bk of the trilogy, specifically).
Any series of books which begins with the complete destruction
of Earth is bound to be amusing, eh?
Best regards,
James Kass.
Sarasvati wrote,
...and John Cowan replied:
Advertising on this list is well-known to be absolutely forbidden.
I call on Sarasvati to act.
John is correct. Please do not use this list to solicit business.
Quoting from a post from Sathia which appeared today on the
Tamil_araichchi
Everyone prostrate and all together We are not worthy...
Doug Ewell wrote:
Tex Texin tex at i18nguy dot com wrote:
Hall?
Check?
Re- ?
Water?
No, too late. John Hudson already won this round, for finding a way to
bring it back on topic. (Turns to John and bows, Pat Morita
David,
Why couldn't a checklist be established for each of the functionalities
that you mention, which a product could score itself against for
conformance, over a state range of supported characters?
Recently, I did a search for a product, and it was difficult to know
which scripts were
21 matches
Mail list logo
