ASCIIfied vs Boko Hausa on international radio websites

In the past, there has been mention on this list of use of extended Latin on the web and using charset=utf-8 in page parameters - neither of which are a novelty anymore. The issue now in some cases is policies of organizations and decisions by web content managers whether and how to use

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

I think the term "non-ASCII Unicode" is just fine, and we don't need anything beyond that. It is clearly those Unicode characters that aren't (2) in http://unicode.org/glossary/#ASCII. Mark *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 6:20 PM,

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

I would say there's already enough terminology in the Unicode world to add more to it. This thread already hinted at enough ways of expressing what you'd like, the simplest one being "scalar values greater than U+001F". This is the clearest you can come up with and anybody who has basic

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/21/2015 5:17 PM, Peter Constable wrote: If you think it's a serious problem that there isn't one conventional term for "characters outside the ASCII repertoire" or "UTF-8 multi-code-unit encoded representations" (since different authors could devise different terminology solutions), then

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Le mardi, 29 septembre 2015 à 21:03, Richard Wordingham a écrit : > Too wordy and clearly prone to error! Yes and maybe that "average engineer" does not understand negation. So clearly any of non-ASCII, non-Basic Latin or greater than U+007F cannot fit. Bring in the bureaucrats, new terminology

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 20:27:28 +0100 Daniel Bünzli wrote: > Le mardi, 29 septembre 2015 à 19:50, Ken Whistler a écrit : > > I agree that "scalar values greater than U+007F" doesn't just trip > > off the tongue, and while technically accurate, it is bad > > terminology

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/29/2015 12:27 PM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: Le mardi, 29 septembre 2015 à 19:50, Ken Whistler a écrit : I agree that "scalar values greater than U+007F" doesn't just trip off the tongue, and while technically accurate, it is bad terminology -- precisely because it begs the question "wtf are

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/29/2015 8:40 PM, Sean Leonard wrote: I like the definition of "character" in ASCII: 3.3 Character. A member of a set of elements used for the organization, control, or representation of data. This, by the way, is the

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/29/2015 11:50 AM, Ken Whistler wrote: On 9/29/2015 10:30 AM, Sean Leonard wrote: On 9/29/2015 9:40 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: I would say there's already enough terminology in the Unicode world to add more to it. This thread already hinted at enough ways of expressing what you'd like,

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/29/2015 9:40 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: I would say there's already enough terminology in the Unicode world to add more to it. This thread already hinted at enough ways of expressing what you'd like, the simplest one being "scalar values greater than U+001F". This is the clearest you can

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

Le mardi, 29 septembre 2015 à 18:30, Sean Leonard a écrit : > Uh...I think you mean U+007F? :) Yes… see how it was easy to point out that the definition was wrong. It would also have been, if this was code and we were talking about a protocol whose specification was using this notation rather

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On 9/29/2015 10:30 AM, Sean Leonard wrote: On 9/29/2015 9:40 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: I would say there's already enough terminology in the Unicode world to add more to it. This thread already hinted at enough ways of expressing what you'd like, the simplest one being "scalar values greater

Re: Concise term for non-ASCII Unicode characters

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 17:40:47 +0100 Daniel Bünzli wrote: > I would say there's already enough terminology in the Unicode world > to add more to it. This thread already hinted at enough ways of > expressing what you'd like, the simplest one being "scalar values >