My previous attempt to send this mail was rejected by the list as
spam. If this one will not appear on the list, would you be so kind to
forward it to the list and the listmaster?
On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 12:20 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> The abbreviation in the postcard,
> On 30 Oct 2018, at 22:50, Ken Whistler via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>> but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
>
> For what it's worth, "mgr" seems to be the usual abbreviation in Polish for
> it.
That seems to be
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:02:43PM +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 at 21:34, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
> > wrote:
> > > E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> > > encoding and
On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
For what it's worth, "mgr" seems to be the usual abbreviation in Polish
for it.
--Ken
Marcel Schneider replied to Khaled Hosny:
>>> E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth encoding and
>>> using without any caveat, [...]
>>
>> Curious, what Arabic superscripts are encoded in Unicode?
>
> [...] There is the range U+FC5E..U+FC63 (presentation forms).
Arabic
On 30/10/2018 at 21:34, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> > encoding and using without any caveat, whereas when Latin script is on,
> > superscripts are
Julian Bradfield wrote:
>> in the 17ᵗʰ or 18ᵗʰ century to keep it only for ordinals. Should
>> Unicode
>
> What do you mean, for ordinals? If you mean 1st, 2nd etc., then there
> is not now (when superscripting looks very old-fashioned) and never
> has been any requirement to superscript them,
On 2018-10-30, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> Dr Bradfield just added on 30/10/2018 at 14:21 something that I didn’t
> know when replying to Dr Ewell on 29/10/2018 at 21:27:
>> The English abbreviation Mr was also frequently superscripted in the
>> 15th-17th centuries, and that didn't
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> encoding and using without any caveat, whereas when Latin script is on,
> superscripts are thrown into the same cauldron as underscoring.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 02:47:25 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> We are here at the line between what is pure visual encoding (e.g.
> using superscript letters), and logical encoding (as done eveywhere
> else in unicode with combining sequences; the most well known
> exceptions being for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:43:14 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Now what if we were future historians given the task of encoding both
> of those strings, from two different sources, and had no idea what
> those two strings were supposed to represent? Wouldn't it be best to
> preserve both
Rather than a dozen individual e-mails, I’m sending this omnibus reply
for the record, because even if here and in CLDR (SurveyTool forum and
Trac) everything has already been discussed and fixed, there is still
a need to stay acknowledging, so as not to fail following up, with
respect to the
On 2018-10-30, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> (Still responding to Ken Whistler's post)
> Do you know the difference between H₂SO₄ and H2SO4? One of them is a
> chemical formula, the other one is a license plate number. T̲h̲a̲t̲ is
> not a stylistic difference /in my book/. (Emphasis
(Still responding to Ken Whistler's post)
> The fact that I could also implement superscripting and subscripting on a
> mechanical typewriter via turning the platen up and down half a line,
also
> does not make *those* aspects of text styling plain text. either.
Do you know the difference
Ken Whistler replied,
>> could be typed on old-style mechanical
>> typewriters. Quintessential plain-text, that.
>
> Nope. Typewriters were regularly used for
> underscoring and for strikethrough, both of which
> are *styling* of text, and not plain text. The
> mere fact that some visual
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:20:49 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > I think this is one of the few cases where Multicode may have
> > advantages over Unicode. In a mathematical contest, aⁿ would be
> > interpreted as _a_ applied _n_ times. As to "fⁿ", ambiguity may
16 matches
Mail list logo
