On Wednesday, 22 August 2018, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> On 08/21/2018 02:03 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Best we can do is shout loudly at OpenType tables and hope to cram in
> behavior (or at least appearance, which is more likely all we can
On 08/21/2018 02:03 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
On 8/21/2018 7:56 AM, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:04 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
Is there a block of RTL PUA also?
No.
Perhaps
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:02 PM Doug Ewell via Unicode
wrote:
> Ken Whistler wrote:
>
> > The way forward for folks who want to do this kind thing is:
> >
> > 1. Define a *protocol* for reliable interchange of custom character
> > property information about PUA code points.
>
> I've often
Ken Whistler wrote:
> The way forward for folks who want to do this kind thing is:
>
> 1. Define a *protocol* for reliable interchange of custom character
> property information about PUA code points.
I've often thought that would be a great idea. You can't get to steps 2
and 3 without step 1.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:03:41AM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 8/21/2018 7:56 AM, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> > > On 8/20/2018 5:04 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> > > > Is there a
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 11:03:41 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 8/21/2018 7:56 AM, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote:
> Really? Suppose someone wants to implement a bicameral script in PUA.
> They would need case mappings for that, and how would those be
> "better represented in the font
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> I think PUA users should provide the
> properties of the characters used in a form analogical to the Unicode
> itself, and the software should be able to use this additional
> information.
>
I already
On 8/21/2018 7:56 AM, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
On 8/20/2018 5:04 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
Is there a block of RTL PUA also?
No.
Perhaps there should be?
This is a periodic suggestion that
2011 Thread:
https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2011-m08/0124.html
Please read in particular these two:
- https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2011-m08/0174.html
- https://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2011-m08/0212.html
(tl;dr: 1. the PUA set is fixed, 2. being
On Tue, Aug 21 2018 at 16:56 +0200, unicode@unicode.org writes:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
>> On 8/20/2018 5:04 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
>> > Is there a block of RTL PUA also?
>>
>> No.
>
> Perhaps there should be?
>
> What about
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 05:17:21PM -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 8/20/2018 5:04 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> > Is there a block of RTL PUA also?
>
> No.
Perhaps there should be?
What about designating a part of the PUA to have a specific property? Only
certain
Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
> Why don't we just get Blissymbolics encoded as it is?
The Pipeline still has the Everson proposal from 1998, but Blissymbols
are still in the Pipeline.
Scripts Encoding Initiative
( http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/ )
page,
On 8/21/2018 1:01 AM, Julian Bradfield
via Unicode wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to shoehorn Overington's pet
project, "language-independent
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 08:53:18 +0800
via Unicode wrote:
> On 2018-08-21 08:04, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> > Still, maybe it
> > doesn't really matter much: your special-purpose font can treat any
> > codepoint any way it likes, right?
> Not all properties come from the font. For
On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to
> shoehorn Overington's pet
> project, "language-independent sentences/words," which are still
> generally deemed out of scope for Unicode.
I find it increasingly hard
(from 2018-07-27)
> Michael Everson responded,
>
>>> If members of the Georgian user community want to consider this a stylistic
>>> difference, they are free to do so.
>>
>> It isn’t a stylistic difference. It is a different use of capital letters
>> than Latin, Cyrillic and other scripts use
16 matches
Mail list logo
