Re: wws dot org

Thanks for the input. I’ll discuss it with Deborah Anderson. We can make possible changes with the next update of the site to Unicode 12. > Am 16.01.2019 um 18:38 schrieb Phake Nick : > > Feedback after briefly reading the East Asia section of the website: > 1. I am pretty sure the "Kaida"

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On 17/01/2019 07:36, David Starner via Unicode wrote: […] On the other hand, most people won't enter anything into a tweet they can't enter from their keyboard, and if they had to, would resort to cut and paste. The only people Unicode italics could help without change are people who already

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 7:41 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Computer text tradition aside, nobody seems to offer any legitimate > reason why such information isn't worthy of being preservable in > plain-text. Perhaps there isn't one. > Worthy of being preservable? Again, if you want rich

Re: Encoding italic

On 2019/01/17 12:38, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > ( http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode11.0.0/ch02.pdf ) > > "Plain text must contain enough information to permit the text to be > rendered legibly, and nothing more." > > The argument is that italic information can be stripped yet

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On 1/16/2019 7:38 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Computer text tradition aside, nobody seems to offer any legitimate reason why such information isn't worthy of being preservable in plain-text.  Perhaps there isn't one. By introducing

Re: NNBSP (was: A last missing link for interoperable representation)

On 16/01/2019 21:53, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:25:06 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: If your fonts behave incorrectly on your system because it does not map any glyph for NNBSP, don't blame the font or Unicode about this problem, blame the renderer

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

Victor Gaultney wrote, > Treating italic like punctuation is a win for a lot of people: Italic Unicode encoding is a win for a lot of people regardless of approach.  Each of the listed wins remains essentially true whether treated as punctuation, encoded atomically, or selected with VS. >

NNBSP (was: A last missing link for interoperable representation)

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:25:06 +0100 Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > If your fonts behave incorrectly on your system because it does not > map any glyph for NNBSP, don't blame the font or Unicode about this > problem, blame the renderer (or the application or OS using it, may > be they are

Re: New ideas (from: wws dot org)

On 1/16/2019 9:30 AM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote as follows:  PS: of course, if a contemplated change, such as the one alluded to, should be ill advised, its negative effects could have wide ranging impacts...but that's not the topic here. If you object to encoding

Re: wws dot org

Feedback after briefly reading the East Asia section of the website: 1. I am pretty sure the "Kaida" script is not living anymore, according to Wikipedia description 2. Hentaigana refers to all alternative form of kana that're used before modern standardization, I don't think they're still used

Re: wws dot org

On 1/16/2019 6:33 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: So to date, Unicode has only made half its way, and for every single script in the Standard there is another script out there that remains still unsupported. First things

Re: wws dot org

On 15/01/2019 19:22, Johannes Bergerhausen via Unicode wrote: Dear list, I am happy to report that www.worldswritingsystems.org  is now online. The web site is a joint venture by — Institut Designlabor Gutenberg (IDG), Mainz, Germany, — Atelier National

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

HI Victor, an off list reply. The contents are just random thoughts sparked by an interesting conversation. On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 22:44, Victor Gaultney via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > - It finally, and conclusively, would end the decades of the mess in HTML > that surrounds and

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

> On 16 Jan 2019, at 09:30, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > > I wrote, > > > The VS possibility would double the character count of any strings > > including them. > > A kind list member has pointed out privately that the above is mistaken. > Twitter character counts aren't actually

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

James Kass wrote: Concerns about statefulness in plain-text exist.  Treating "italic" as an opening/closing "punctuation" may help get around such concerns. IIRC, it was proposed that the Egyptian cartouche be handled that way. I do appreciate the technical issues surrounding statefulness and

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:19 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Would there be any advantages to rich-text apps if italics were added to > Unicode? Is there any cost/benefit data? You've made an assertion > about complication to rich-text apps which I can neither confirm nor refute. It's

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

Julian Bradfield wrote, > Oh, and what about dropped initials? They have been used in both > manuscripts and typography for many centuries - surely we must encode > them? Naa-aah, we just hack the full width presentation forms for that. Ｄrop Ｃaps in Ｐlain Ｔext (Whether they actually drop

Re: Encoding italic

On 16/01/2019 06:05, David Starner via Unicode wrote: […] […] There's no one here regards plain text with derision, disdain or contempt. There is one sort of so-called plain text that looks unbearable to me. That is the draft-style plain text full of ASCII fallbacks. Especially those where