Re: implicit weight base for U+2CEA2

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:07 PM, James Tauber wrote: > Ah yes, I was just going by membership in the CJK Unified Ideographs > Extension E block, not actual assignment. > > So the lack of assignment means it should fail the Unified_Ideograph > membership in

Re: implicit weight base for U+2CEA2

Ah yes, I was just going by membership in the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension E block, not actual assignment. So the lack of assignment means it should fail the Unified_Ideograph membership in http://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Values_For_Base_Table Got it! Thanks James On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

More information from Tim Coslet of the Computer History Museum 1620 Team: The Model I printed a Cyrillic Ж for invalid character codes. The width of the Cyrillic Ж was narrower than shown at left, so that it matched the width of other characters the typewriter typed. The Model II printed a

Re: implicit weight base for U+2CEA2

On 9/27/2017 2:19 PM, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote: On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 PM, James Tauber via Unicode > wrote: I recently updated pyuca[1], my pure Python implementation of the Unicode Collation Algorithm to work with

Re: implicit weight base for U+2CEA2

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:49 PM, James Tauber via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > I recently updated pyuca[1], my pure Python implementation of the Unicode > Collation Algorithm to work with 8.0.0, 9.0.0, and 10.0.0 but to get all > the tests to work, I had to special case the implicit

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

But it is not the case for this early computer, whose typewriter terminal is clearly using non-interchangeable font balls but old metalic type on a "wheel of hammers". It's clearly also that this is not that typerwriter (described in the munalk) that was used to typeset the manual using more

implicit weight base for U+2CEA2

I recently updated pyuca[1], my pure Python implementation of the Unicode Collation Algorithm to work with 8.0.0, 9.0.0, and 10.0.0 but to get all the tests to work, I had to special case the implicit weight base for U+2CEA2. The spec seems to suggest the base should be FB80 but I had to override

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

I checked with the Computer History Museum about the 1620. According to Dave Babcock, IBM 1620 Restoration Team Lead at the CHM: The 1620 console typewriter actually had a "zha" character typebar that it would use for unknown characters. The only overprinting that the typewriter would do was a

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Ken, On 9/27/2017 11:10 AM, Ken Shirriff via Unicode wrote: The IBM type catalog might be of interest. It describes in great detail the character sets of the IBM typewriters and line printers and the custom characters that can be ordered for printer chains and Selectric type balls. Link:

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Indeed, the later 1620-2 was equipped with a Selectric, which probably has something to do with the fact that the ж-like character was replaced on that model by the “pillow” character (which doesn’t seem to be available in Unicode at all). > On Sep 27, 2017, at 1:02 PM, Asmus Freytag via

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

The IBM type catalog might be of interest. It describes in great detail the character sets of the IBM typewriters and line printers and the custom characters that can be ordered for printer chains and Selectric type balls. Link:

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Asmus, On 9/27/2017 10:02 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: In that context it's worth remembering that there while you could say for most typewriters that "the typewriter is the font", there were noted exceptions. The IBM Selectric, for example, had exchangeable type balls which allowed

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On 9/27/2017 9:32 AM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: The only font on that machine can be found by feeling the key strikers in the typewriter. In that context it's worth remembering that there while you could say for most typewriters that

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

Leo, On 9/26/2017 9:00 PM, Leo Broukhis via Unicode wrote: The next time I'm at the Mountain View CHM, I'll try to ask. However, assuming it was an overstrike of an X and an I, then where does the "Eris"-like glyph come from? Was there ever an IBM font with a double-semicircular X like )( ?