Magda Danish (Unicode) scripsit:
I'm looking for the easiest and more stable way to transform
an (UNICODE) accented character to its equivalent (UNICODE)
non-accented character.
The following mapping table is an approximation to that.
00C0;0041
00C1;0041
00C2;0041
00C3;0041
00C4;0041
On 04/08/2003 17:36, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter Kirk asked:
A similar issue which is not Hebrew related would be a (mythical)
requirement to display a diacritic like 0315, 031B or 0322 in isolation.
It would not always be appropriate to use a space or NBSP as a base
character as this
On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 1:59 AM, Curtis Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2003-08-05 15:31 Peter Kirk wrote:
Thank you, Mark. This helps to clarify things, but still doesn't
explicitly answer my question of how to encode a sentence like In
this language the diacritic ^ may appear
On 06/08/2003 03:54, Philippe Verdy wrote:
On Wednesday, August 06, 2003 1:59 AM, Curtis Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2003-08-05 15:31 Peter Kirk wrote:
Thank you, Mark. This helps to clarify things, but still doesn't
explicitly answer my question of how to encode a sentence like In
Sourav,
However, I could not map the block you mentioned to the block names
provided in Unicode site (http://www.unicode.org/charts/). I tried to
map them based on the similarity of names and specified the actual block
down below. Could you please once verify it?
The block names are the ones
Peter Kirk said:
From what Ken says, it sounds like it will be wrong from whenever
Unicode 4.0 is officially issued
Actually Unicode 4.0 was officially issued on April 17, 2003.
What we are waiting on now is for the publication of the text
of the book to catch up to that fact. ;-)
Kent Karlsson responded:
I see no particular *technical* problem with using WJ, though. In
contrast
to the suggestion of using CGJ (re. another problem)
anywhere else but
at the end of a combining sequence. CGJ has combining class
0, despite
being invisible and not
Peter Kirk peter dot r dot kirk at ntlworld dot com wrote:
Or it may not. It may be a deficiency in the level of Unicode
support afforded by the fonts and rendering engines. ...
If there are such deficiencies in fonts and rendering engines which
purport to be Unicode compliant, that
On Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:13 AM, Kenneth Whistler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, yes, which is why I have been advocating it as the
solution to the Biblical Hebrew text representation problem.
I agree with you about that. But it need not be characterized
as legal in opposition to the
At 16:16 -0400 2003-08-06, John Cowan wrote:
I would like to ask the old farts^W^Wrespected elders of the UTC
which principle they consider more important, abstractly speaking:
the principle that combining marks always follow their base characters
(a typographical principle), or that text is
Philippe Verdy said:
The same thing can be said about any inserted invisible character,
combining or not.
How is: a, ring above, null, dot below supposed to be different from
a, dot below, null, ring above
How is: a, ring above, LRM, dot below supposed to be different from
11 matches
Mail list logo
