Kenneth Whistler wrote:
we can
calculate the weight as being *approximately* 9.05 pounds
(avoirdupois) [or 10.99 troy pounds].
Apparently a weighty publication, that forthcoming Unicode standard...
Cheers,
Otto Stolz
I agree with you; on the one hand, the examples mentioned like få
and fè and so on don't look very nice as is and could use a little
correction; but they would benefit more from adding a pixel or so of
I was thinking more about high resolution (where pixels are so small
you nearly cannot see
Kent Karlsson scripsit:
They should NOT be tweaked apart by kerning. That would destroy the normal
spacing of glyphs within words. Adding or removing an accent should
NOT change the spacing between letters.
I don't see how that's possible in the general case. In particular, ï
just about
John Hudson schreef:
Ligatures do not need to be encoded except as underlying
characters: glyph
substitution lookups should be used to map from, e.g. the letters
f and j
to an fj ligature. There are, currently, only a handful of
applications
supporting such substitution
I thought this was
Kent Karlsson schreef:
correction; but they would benefit more
from adding a pixel or so of I was thinking more about high
resolution (where pixels are so small
you nearly cannot
see them)...
Sorry, more
misunderstandings. What I meant by an extra pixel or so was to add a pixel at a
I don't see how that's possible in the general case. In particular, ï
just about has to be wider than i (except in a monowidth font, obviously),
or the dots will collide with whatever's nearby. Similarly with i-macron.
A diaeresis or macron over i or j can be narrower than when over most
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[...]
Of course, further weight corrections need to be applied if reading
the standard *below* sea level or in a deep cave.
I hope it will not be consider pedantic to observe that the mass or weight
of a book do not change depending on whether someone is reading it or
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
the mass or weight
of a book do not change depending on whether someone is reading it or not.
Consequently, the same weight corrections need to be applied also if someone
*throws* the standard in a deep cave.
Beware: When the book is thrown at a large speed, the
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kent Karlsson scripsit:
E.g., it is quite legitimate to render, e.g. LIGATURE FI as an f followed
by an i, no ligation, whereas that is not allowed for the ae
ligature/letter, nor for the oe ligature.
How do you know that? Either Caesar or Csar
Otto Stolz wrote:
Beware: When the book is thrown at a large speed, the relativistic
effects must be taken into account. I hope that the editors took
pains to find a wording that will not upset anybody to the extend
that he would throw the book away at a considerable fraction of
the speed of
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Unicode character (\uFFE2\uFF80\uFF93)
...
What you are actually looking for is the UTF-8 sequence:
0xE2 0x80 0x93
The 8-bit UTF-8 bytes E2 80 93 (all with the most significant bit set) get *sign-extended* to 16
bits, producing FFE2 FF80 FF93. It should suffice in a
At 04:25 AM 3/11/2003, Pim Blokland wrote:
I thought this was the graphics system's task, not the
application's. I mean, am I not supposes to be able to simply write
DrawString('olijfhofje') in my program and have QuickDraw do what it
takes to ligaturize it all?
I should have written system or
No.
One cannot make such a black and white statement (correctly, at least). The
OED does use Csar, for example. While most people would consider it
slightly old-fashioned to use that form, it is done.
Mark
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
James,
thanks, its working for me now.
But still I have a doubt that why \uFFE2\uFF80\uFF93 is giving ndash in
html.
if you have any information on this, than pls let me know.
Thanks
-Pankaj
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003
Title: Message
Please make sure to copy Vladimir[EMAIL PROTECTED] on your
reply.
Thanks,
Magda
-Original Message- From: Vladimir Ivanov
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 6:22 AM To: Magda Danish (Unicode)
Subject: ZWNJ Persian Collation Dear
Ken recently said:
Not to disagree publicly with Michael or Mark on this, but
in the interests of accuracy, I should point out that if the
rest mass of the Unicode 4.0 publication is assumed to be exactly
4.1 kg (which then would, indeed, also be the case on our
moon, or even a Jovian moon),
Jain, Pankaj (MED, TCS) schreef:
But still I have a doubt that why \uFFE2\uFF80\uFF93 is giving
ndash in
html.
In html? No way! Html can't interpret series of hex bytes. Try
ndash; or #8211;.
Pim Blokland
I certainly think it would be good published with a leather cover,
onion-skin paper, and gilt edges, yes. First we have to have Ken
divide it into verses, though.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 01:19 PM, Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
Hope they can reduce the weight next time by change the type of the
Hope they can reduce the weight next time by change the type of the
paper. My Bible is about 500 pages (about 1500+ pages) more than the
unicode 3.0 standard but only 50% of it's thick. Same as my
Chinese/English dictionary.
Otto Stolz wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
we can
calculate the
We've asked. But you need to understand that publishers
have their own rules and constraints. Paper is bought in
huge quantities by publishers, and special purpose papers
(such as lightweight, thin, high-opacity papers used in
dictionaries) are expensive and carefully planned for.
As important as
John Cowan posted:
How do you know that? Either Caesar or Csar is good Latin.
Christopher John Fynn posted in response:
No.
Hart's Rules:
VOWEL-LIGATURES
The combinations and should each be printed as two letters in Latin and Greek
words, e.g. Aeneid, Aeschylus, Caesar, Oedipus, Phoenicia;
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth dot com scripsit:
In recent encyclicals, however, at least as published at
www.vatican.va,
the and o are not used.
Perhaps because they were using 8859-1?
That would allow but prevent , which might seem arbitrary enough that
they decided to avoid both.
At 17:50 +0100 2003-03-11, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer
is not directly observing this book, it may cease to exist or will exist
only in a vague and undermined state.
Fortunately, someone is always reading the Unicode Standard.
At 12:45 -0800 2003-03-11, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
As important as we all think the Unicode Standard is, its press run
is still rather small compared to those for Bibles and dictionaries!
Just as long as it is properly sewn and doesn't splinter into fragments
--
Michael Everson * * Everson
At 14:15 -0800 2003-03-11, Doug Ewell wrote:
What I want to know is, will the book and CD once again feature images
of scripts that *cannot* be written with Unicode? The list is getting
shorter.
It will.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
John H. Jenkins wrote:
I certainly think it would be good published with a leather cover,
onion-skin paper, and gilt edges, yes. First we have to have Ken
divide it into verses, though.
I thought we already have verses dividied in Chapter 3. Those
C1-C13/D1-2 stuff
One of my colleague ask me this question. We use LCMapStringW on WinXP
and LCMapStringA on Win98 (by using LCMAP_SORTKEY ). And we got
different sorting order for the following
Example of message list ordering in Win98:
TESTING #1
TESTING #10
TESTING #100
TESTING #11
While, the message list
Because the following code got apply to your unicode data
1. convert \u to unicode -
\uFFE2\uFF80\uFF93
become
three unicode characters-
U+FFE2, U+FF80, U+FF93
This is ok
2. a "Throw away hihg 8 bits got apply to your code" so
it became 3 bytes
E2 80 93
3. and some code treat it as UTF-8
From: Yung-Fong Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of my colleague ask me this question.
Not much to do with Unicode, though. Is it?
We use LCMapStringW on WinXP and LCMapStringA
on Win98 (by using LCMAP_SORTKEY ). And we got
different sorting order for the following
Example of message list
John Hudson wrote:
The same people consider Latin a dead language, suitable only
for study of ancient documents, which is clearly not the view taken at
the Vatican, which continues to produce new documents in that language.
In recent encyclicals, however, at least as published at
30 matches
Mail list logo
