Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Mark E. Shoulson
On 11/23/2016 10:15 AM, James Kass wrote: http://patch.com/florida/southtampa/petition-drive-aims-raise-manatee-awareness-adorable-way If enough people sign the petition, will Unicode add a manatee emoji? And, how about wolverines and lemmings? Are any petitions underway for them? How many

Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Christoph Päper
James Kass : > > And, how about [other emoji]? Are any petitions underway for them? For what it’s worth, several weeks ago (before UTC149), I collected all emoji petitions I could find online (and that were in languages I can at least somewhat decipher). I’m excluding

Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Doug Ewell
Leonardo Boiko wrote: > I support the creation of manatee emoji, but only if it’s accompanied > by a new modifier for emoji size, coming in the varieties: TINY, > SMALL, LARGE, HUGE. > > This would allow us to say "oh, the [HUGE MANATEE]" in emoji. Leonardo immediately wins the award for best

Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Leonardo Boiko
I support the creation of manatee emoji, but only if it’s accompanied by a new modifier for emoji size, coming in the varieties: TINY, SMALL, LARGE, HUGE. This would allow us to say "oh, the [HUGE MANATEE]" in emoji. 2016-11-23 13:15 GMT-02:00 James Kass : >

Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew West
On 23 November 2016 at 16:39, Ken Whistler wrote: > On 11/23/2016 7:15 AM, James Kass wrote: >> >> How many signatures on a petition would be needed before >> Unicode would consider adding a non-existent character to the >> repertoire? > > I would say somewhat more than zero

Re: Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread Ken Whistler
James, On 11/23/2016 7:15 AM, James Kass wrote: How many signatures on a petition would be needed before Unicode would consider adding a non-existent character to the repertoire? I would say somewhat more than zero (which could hardly be considered a petition) and less than 7,466,363,069

Manatee emoji?

2016-11-23 Thread James Kass
http://patch.com/florida/southtampa/petition-drive-aims-raise-manatee-awareness-adorable-way If enough people sign the petition, will Unicode add a manatee emoji? And, how about wolverines and lemmings? Are any petitions underway for them? How many signatures on a petition would be needed

Re: Line-Breaking Hyphenation

2016-11-23 Thread Michael Everson
On 23 Nov 2016, at 09:05, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > What is 'line-breaking hyphenation'? In particular, I am trying to determine > the meaning of the TUS statement 'There is no line-breaking hyphenation' > referring to the Lanna script at the end of TUS

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
On 23/11/16 11:45, Daniel Bünzli wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12:28, Tom Hacohen wrote: I took a look at the ICU sources, and they explicitly mention this case, so it seems I was mistaken with interpreting the intention of the UAX. I still find it confusing, but based on this thread,

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Daniel Bünzli
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12:28, Tom Hacohen wrote: > I took a look at the ICU sources, and they explicitly mention this case, > so it seems I was mistaken with interpreting the intention of the UAX. I > still find it confusing, but based on this thread, it seems to just be me. It's not

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
On 23/11/16 11:20, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2016-11-23 12:00 GMT+01:00 Tom Hacohen >: Also take another look at http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_and_Format_Rules

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Philippe Verdy
2016-11-23 12:00 GMT+01:00 Tom Hacohen : > > Also take another look at http://www.unicode.org/reports > /tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_and_Format_Rules specifically the table that > shows another way of writing the ignore rule. This again shows my > understanding of rule 4 is

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
On 23/11/16 11:11, Daniel Bünzli wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12:00, Tom Hacohen wrote: This looks like a mistake statement rather than a binding rule. Well at least to me it's pretty clear that this is not the case. Even if that's true, look at my second statement (which you

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Philippe Verdy
You say "theres's no case where two rules apply". I don't think this is right, rules apply in the precedence order as long as they've not produced a decision for generating a "break here" or no break here". This is especially important for rules that generate only a replacement, that are executed

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Daniel Bünzli
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 12:00, Tom Hacohen wrote: > This looks like a mistake statement rather than a binding rule. Well at least to me it's pretty clear that this is not the case. > Even if that's true, look at my second statement (which you redacted in > your reply): I'm not arguing

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
On 23/11/16 10:52, Daniel Bünzli wrote: On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 11:22, Tom Hacohen wrote: Thank you for your reply, but I don't think the UAX, specifically the line you quoted implies that. The line you quoted says that the process is terminated when a rule matches and produces a

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Daniel Bünzli
On Wednesday 23 November 2016 at 11:22, Tom Hacohen wrote: > Thank you for your reply, but I don't think the UAX, specifically the > line you quoted implies that. The line you quoted says that the process > is terminated when a rule matches and produces a boundary status. In > Table 1[1], the

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
On 23/11/16 10:01, Daniel Bünzli wrote: On Tuesday 22 November 2016 at 13:07, Tom Hacohen wrote: However, looking at the test case and the UAX[2], this does not look correct. More specifically, because of rule 4: ZWJ Extended GAZ -> ZWJ GAZ And then according to rule 3c, there should be no

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Daniel Bünzli
On Tuesday 22 November 2016 at 13:07, Tom Hacohen wrote: > However, looking at the test case and the UAX[2], this does not look > correct. More specifically, because of rule 4: > ZWJ Extended GAZ -> ZWJ GAZ > And then according to rule 3c, there should be no break opportunity > between them.

Re: Potential contradiction between the WordBreak test data and UAX #29

2016-11-23 Thread Tom Hacohen
You said: > So ignore it and test whever the last symbols glues with ZWJ (it should, > so there's no break in the reference implementation). Which makes me think you misread the example I quoted. There is a break in the reference implementation, though I argue (like you just did) that there

Line-Breaking Hyphenation

2016-11-23 Thread Richard Wordingham
What is 'line-breaking hyphenation'? In particular, I am trying to determine the meaning of the TUS statement 'There is no line-breaking hyphenation' referring to the Lanna script at the end of TUS Section 16.7. One possibility is that it means that visible text does not distinguish line breaks