Michael Everson wrote:
> Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself
> and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş.
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The three versions of the Cyrilic letter i is mapped to 1.5
> (distinguished only on lowercase with the Turkic lowercase
On 2018/02/21 12:15, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
I absolutely disagree. There’s a whole lot of related languages out there, and
the speakers share some things in common. Orthographic harmonization between
these languages can ONLY help any speaker of one to access information in any
of
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:04:34 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> On the opposite, colored in Arabic or hieroglyph texts is a a useful
> emphasize and sometimes semantically significant (some rare old
> scripts also used dictinctive colors): we are in a case similar to
On 2/21/2018 11:45 AM, David Starner
via Unicode wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy
via Unicode wrote:
“Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English
I'm not speaking about hieroglyphs, even if they are perfectly readable in
monochrome on monuments.
I was just saying that colorful **emojis** are just a nuisance and colors
in them do not add any semantic value (except possibly flags, skin tones
were added only to avoid a never-ending battle on
Philippe Verdy:
>
> I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es, mobiles,
> and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render them as
> monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the colorful
> extensions of OpenType made for them.
See
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:28:14 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es,
> mobiles, and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render
> them as monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the
>
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English word attested back to 1590.
>
Curmudgeony may be identified as misspelled by Google, but it's got a bit
of usage dating back a hundred years. Wiktionary's entry
On 2/21/2018 9:23 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode
>:
Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)
Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in
dictionaries. Probably alocalUS
2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :
> Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)
>
Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in dictionaries.
Probably a local US jargon or typo in your strange word.
On 2/21/2018 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy
via Unicode wrote:
2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled
Hosny :
Now if
he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it
would
2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled Hosny :
> Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would
> have been a lot more obvious, but we already established that the world
> does not need emoji.
>
No, I don't need emojis. Any emoji means all or nothing, they
CORRECTION:
The Turkish dull-I letter for the sound /ɨ ~ ɯ ~ ɤ/ DOESN’T HAVE A DOT ATOP
IT It’s simply written as , while the normal I letter for the
sound /ɩ ~ i:/ DOES HAVE A DOT ATOP THAT—and is written as <İ i>.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:10 AM, Robert Wheelock
The whole *ASCII apostrophe* thing for Qazaqi (Kazakh) could be avoided by
using a Turkish-based orthography; this way, /h/ can still be distinguished
from /x/, /u/ from /w/, ... !
·<Ä Ö Ü> for front rounded vowels /æ ø y/
·<Ş J> for laminal fricatives /ʃ ʒ/, and <Ç C> for laminal affricates /tʃ
Sorry, but such English subtle interpretations are not in my mind, don't
suppose everyone uses the second degree everytime something is posted here,
these are just unneeded diversions causing trouble, it does not make the
thread clear to follow.
2018-02-21 5:15 GMT+01:00 James Kass
Philippe, it was a jest. (Good one, too!)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2018-02-21 5:01 GMT+01:00 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode :
>>
>> > The good news is that the thread title question is moot.
>>
>> Yes, now let’s please return
2018-02-21 5:01 GMT+01:00 Anshuman Pandey via Unicode :
> > The good news is that the thread title question is moot.
>
> Yes, now let’s please return to discussing emoji.
>
Or NOT !!! This is NOT at all the same topic
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 9:49 PM, James Kass via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
>> Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any
>> speaker of one to access information in any of the others. That expands
>> people’s worlds. That would
Michael Everson wrote:
> Orthographic harmonization between these languages can ONLY help any
> speaker of one to access information in any of the others. That expands
> people’s worlds. That would be a good goal.
Wouldn't dream of arguing with that. Expanding people's worlds is why
many of us
That's true, this area is a mix of cultures and ethnies, some of them in
troubles/conflicts, and creating additional linguistic problems, or trying
to block communication between them will not help make the situation more
peaceful.
So yes the "divide to conquer" is a probable intent, but also the
I absolutely disagree. There’s a whole lot of related languages out there, and
the speakers share some things in common. Orthographic harmonization between
these languages can ONLY help any speaker of one to access information in any
of the others. That expands people’s worlds. That would be a
A desire to choose their own writing system rather than have one
imposed upon them is understandable. If they also want it to be
distinctive, who could blame them?
I call that more isolationism: If I can uncerstand the political reasons
for not looking like Turkish, why then do they use the dotless i in this
last version (not distinguished however from the dotted i in capital) ?
This is not just a transliteration, this is also a proposal to do at the
same
Stalin would be very pleased. Divide and conquer.
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 01:15, Garth Wallace via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> AIUI "doesn't look like Turkish" was one of the design criteria, for
> political reasons.
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:07 PM Michael Everson via Unicode
As well, the Latin letter "c/C" is not used, just for the digraph "ch/Ch".
But two distinct Cyrillic letters are mapped to Latin "h/H", when one could
be mapped to Latin "x/X" with almost the same letter form to preserve the
orthography.
The three versions of the Cyrilic letter i is mapped to
Not using Turkic letters is daft, particularly as there was a widely-used
transliteration in Kazakhstan anyway. And even if not Ç Ş, they could have used
Ć and Ś.
There’s no value in using diagraphs in Kazakh particularly when there could be
a one-to-one relation with the Cyrillic
Michael Everson:
> Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself
> and 2) if you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş.
I would have argued in favor of digraphs for G' and N' as well if there already
was a decision for Ch and Sh.
Many European orthographies use the
Why on earth would they use Ch and Sh when 1) C isn’t used by itself and 2) if
you’re using Ǵǵ you may as well use Çç Şş.
Groan.
> On 20 Feb 2018, at 19:40, Christoph Päper via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> Apparently the presidential decree prescribing the new Kazakh Latin
>
We'll probably never know which factors influenced the decision, but
apparently some kind of message got through.
May be we've been heard... Now this makes better sense. But I wonder why
they did not choose the caron over C and S, like in other eastern European
languages; they are very well supported since long and cause no problem...
2018-02-20 20:40 GMT+01:00 Christoph Päper via Unicode
Apparently the presidential decree prescribing the new Kazakh Latin orthography
and alphabet has been amended recently. The change completely dumps the
previous approach of digraphs with an apostrophe in second position in favor of
an acute diacritic mark above the base letters for vowels Á/á,
>
> Note the French "touch" keyboard layout is complete for French (provided
> you select the one of the 3 new layouts with Emoji: it has the extra "key"
> for selecting the input language in all 4 layouts)
>
> But the "full" (dockable) touch layout in French which emulates a physical
> keyboard
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 23:30:59 +, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote:
>
> > This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API
> > hasn’t changed all that much
> > since Windows NT 4/95, whereas
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API
> hasn’t changed all that much since Windows NT 4/95, whereas Apple has
> basically thrown away all the work it did up to Mac OS
> On Jan 30, 2018, at 3:20 AM, Alastair Houghton
> wrote:
>
> The “alt” annotation isn’t on the latest keyboards (go look in an Apple
> Store if you don’t believe me :-)).
Interesting! Apple’s documentation shows these keys mostly with “alt” and “⌥”.
On 30 Jan 2018, at 05:31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
wrote:
>
> OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> the Windows US-Intl
>>> does not allow to write French in a
I have always wondered why Microsoft did not push itself at least the five
simple additions needed since long in French for the French AZERTY LAYOUT:
- [AltGr]+[²] to produce the cedilla dead key (needed only before capital
C in French) : this is frequently needed, the alternative would be
OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> >
> >
> > the Windows US-Intl
> > does not allow to write French in a usable manner, as the Œœ is still
> > missing, and does not allow to type German correctly
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:11 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Marcel Schneider wrote:
>
> > Prior to this thread, I believed that the ratio of Windows users
> > liking the US-International vs Mac users liking the US-Extended was
> > like other “Windows implementation” vs “Apple implementation”
(b) it doesn't ship with Windows
Of course that is not a "luxury." Knowing that third-party options are
available, let alone free and easily installed ones, is the luxury.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
Marcel Schneider wrote:
> Prior to this thread, I believed that the ratio of Windows users
> liking the US-International vs Mac users liking the US-Extended was
> like other “Windows implementation” vs “Apple implementation” ratios.
For many users, it may not be a question of what they like, but
> On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
> wrote:
>
>
> the Windows US-Intl
> does not allow to write French in a usable manner, as the Œœ is still
> missing, and does not allow to type German correctly neither due to
> the lack of single angle
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:56:25 -0800, Mark Davis replied to Doug Ewell:
>
> It is not a goal to get "vendors to retire these keyboard layouts and
> replace them" — that's not our role. (And I'm sure that a lot of people
> like and would continue to use the Windows Intl keyboard.)
Instead of
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Mark Davis wrote:
>
> One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in
>> http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html
>> we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those,
>>
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:11:06 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Marcel Schneider wrote:
>
> > We can only hope that now, CLDR is thoroughly re-engineering the way
> > international or otherwise extended keyboards are mapped.
>
> I suspect you already know this and just misspoke, but CLDR doesn't
>
Mark Davis wrote:
One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in
http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html
we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those,
but to also serve as a resource that vendors can draw on.
Would you say, then, that
One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in
http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html we
are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those, but to
also serve as a resource that vendors can draw on.
Mark
On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Doug
Marcel Schneider wrote:
We can only hope that now, CLDR is thoroughly re-engineering the way
international or otherwise extended keyboards are mapped.
I suspect you already know this and just misspoke, but CLDR doesn't
prescribe any vendor's keyboard layouts. CLDR mappings reflect what
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:02:47 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:54:57 +0100 (CET)
> Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>
> > The US-Intl is so weird “you canʼt just leave it on all the time” as
> > reported in:
> >
> >
On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:54:57 +0100 (CET)
Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> The US-Intl is so weird “you canʼt just leave it on all the time” as
> reported in:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML017/0558.html
I did (except when I was using a
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:52:46 +, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:22:37 +0800
> Phake Nick via Unicode wrote:
>
> > >I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly
> > >intuitive for accented Latin-1 characters.
> > How common is the US International
In the mean time, in France, a municipality is refusing to let a baby be
registered with an apostrophe in his Breton name while several babies have
had apostrophes in their names in recent years : 2017 N'néné (F), 2017
Tu'iuvea (M), 2016 D'jessy (M), 2015 N'Guessan (F), 2015 Chem's (M), 2014
On 2018-01-26, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> Some systems (or admins) have been totally defeated by even the ASCII
> version of ʹO’Sullivanʹ. That bodes ill for Kazakhs.
The head (about to be ex-head) of my university is Sir Timothy O'Shea.
On the student record
In cold-metal days, many were driven to resort to “M‘Donald” for lack of a
superscript “c”.
> On Jan 26, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:08:51 +
> Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote:
>
>> Ah!
On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:08:51 +
Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote:
> Ah! Yes That is a battle I gave up a long time ago. The database
> here can only handle ASCII. I have stopped trying to get the systems
> people here to convert the database to UTF-8.
Some systems (or
Ah! Yes That is a battle I gave up a long time ago. The database here can only
handle ASCII. I have stopped trying to get the systems people here to convert
the database to UTF-8.
A few days ago I asked the systems people if they were going upgrade their MS
mail server to handle non ASCII
But your outgoing "From" address doesn't seem to have an accent!?
On 26-Jan-2018 13:58, "Andre Schappo via Unicode"
wrote:
>
> Talking of typing names correctly. Few people bother to type the acute
> accent in André.
>
> This academic year, for the first time ever, I gave
Talking of typing names correctly. Few people bother to type the acute accent
in André.
This academic year, for the first time ever, I gave the following challenges to
my web programming class of 143 students. I gave these challenges in the first
lecture.
① learn how to write my name
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> I agree, and still you won't necessarily have to press a dead key to
> have these characters, if you map one key where the Cyrillic letter
> was > producing directly the character with its accent. [...]
>
> However, if you can type one key to produce one latin letter with
My apologies for the typo. There's no excuse for misspelling someone's name
(especially since I live in Switzerland, and type German every day).
Thanks for calling my attention to it: the doc has been updated.
Mark
Mark
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Andrew West via Unicode <
Just a remark for fun:
- You'll also note that this talk is all about the apostrophe, and if
Kazakhstan wants to introduce it in 2019, that year will match exactly the
code point U+2019 [ ’ ]...
- This year 2018 is also the year to discuss and reverse the apostrophe
decision, and it matches the
Such example shows that ignoring umlauts makes the document
counterintuitive. Nobody is able to infer that "Paper" refers to a person
here or if he actually meant a paper sheet/article...
At least he should have written "Paeper" which would be more correct (if
"Christoph Päper" is German, the
Philippe Verdy wrote:
So there will be a new administrative jargon in Kazakhstan that people
won't like, and outside the government, they'll continue using their
exiosting keyboards [...]
Newspapers and books will continue for a wihile being published in
Cyrillic [...]
Yes, it will be a
On 23 January 2018 at 00:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Regular American users simply don't type umlauts, period.
Not even the president of the Unicode Consortium when referring to
Christoph Päper:
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18051-emoji-ad-hoc-resp.pdf
Andrew
On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 07:59:11 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
> IMO it's hardly clear that that is or in fact *what* is meant by a
> standard keyboard. It meeely seems to me loose political speak to
> make it appear as if they are trying to make things simpler for
Great but then why sticking on a pure western subset (ASCII is mostly for
US only). If he wants to be eastern, so choose ISO 8859-2.
As a bonus, banning the apostrophe from the alphabet will have be security
improvement (thing about the many cases where ASCII apostrophes are used as
string
I agree, and still you won't necessarily have to press a dead key to have
these characters, if you map one key where the Cyrillic letter was
producing directly the character with its accent.
No surprise for user, fast to type, easy to learn, typographically correct,
preserves the etymologies and
On 01/24/2018 09:29 PM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
On 24-Jan-2018 00:25, "Doug Ewell via Unicode" > wrote:
I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on
whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM Shriramana Sharma via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
> On 23-Jan-2018 10:03, "James Kass via Unicode"
> wrote:
>
> (bottle, east, skier, crucial, cherry)
> s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e
> sxixsxa, sxygxys,
On 24-Jan-2018 00:25, "Doug Ewell via Unicode" wrote:
I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on
whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or
whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats.
Sir why this
On 23-Jan-2018 10:03, "James Kass via Unicode" wrote:
(bottle, east, skier, crucial, cherry)
s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e
sxixsxa, sxygxys, sxanxgxysxy, sxesxuxsxi, sxixixe
s̈ïs̈a, s̈yg̈ys, s̈an̈g̈ys̈y, s̈es̈üs̈i, s̈ïïe
śíśa, śyǵys,
So there will be a new administrative jargon in Kazakhstan that people
won't like, and outside the government, they'll continue using their
exiosting keyboards, and will only trnasliterate to Latin using a simple
1-t-to-1 mapping without the ugly apostrophes (most probably acute accents
on vowels,
James Kass wrote:
> Heh. We are offering sound advice. If people fail to heed it, that's
> too bad.
We're offering excellent advice, very well informed. But the leadership
has made the decision that it has made. All the news stories say that
linguistic experts in Kazakhstan offered similar good
ferred any advice on keyboard design, though,
so this may be off-topic
/phil
On Tue, 23/1/18, Doug Ewell via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
Subject: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicod
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 11:51:42 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> An explicitly stated goal of the new orthography was to enable typing
> Kazakh on a "standard keyboard," meaning an English-language one.
> Nazarbayev may ultimately be persuaded to embrace ASCII digraphs,
>
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> The best they should have done is instead keeping their existing
> keyboard layout, continaing both the Cyrillic letters and Latin QWERTY
> printed on them, but operating in two modes (depending on OS
> preferences) to invert the two layouts but without changing the
>
On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:22:37 +0800
Phake Nick via Unicode wrote:
> >I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly
> >intuitive for accented Latin-1 characters.
> How common is the US International keyboard in real life..?
I thought it was two copies per
The best they should have done is instead keeping their existing keyboard
layout, continaing both the Cyrillic letters and Latin QWERTY printed on
them, but operating in two modes (depending on OS preferences) to invert
the two layouts but without changing the keystrokes. It would just have
needed
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM Doug Ewell via Unicode
wrote:
> I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on
> whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or
> whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats.
>
Doug Ewell wrote,
"I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev
on whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or
whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats."
Heh. We are offering sound advice. If people fail to heed it, that's
>I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly intuitive
>for accented Latin-1 characters.
How common is the US International keyboard in real life..?
Users would still need to manually add them in Windows, or in other
computing tools vendors would need to add support for "US
I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on
whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or
whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats.
An explicitly stated goal of the new orthography was to enable typing
Kazakh on a "standard
Ukainian should follow the romanisation model used by Serbian which is
clear for them and coherent with other uses in Eastern Europe: carons for
modified consonnants, and acute accents (sometimes double acute in
Hungarian) for vowels. Even if they want support with a legacy 8-bit
charset, ISO
James Kass:
>
> (bottle, east,skier, crucial,cherry)
> s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e
> sxixsxa, sxygxys, sxanxgxysxy, sxesxuxsxi, sxixixe
> s̈ïs̈a,s̈yg̈ys, s̈an̈g̈ys̈y, s̈es̈üs̈i, s̈ïïe
> śíśa,śyǵys, śańǵyśy, śeśúśi,
For me, having to go around justifying my whims would probably take
some of the fun out of being an authoritarian ruler.
Which suggests that the apostrophe decision can be revised with no
explanation expected, even though a simple explanation exists.
Changing from the apostrophe to the combining
Martin J. Dürst wrote,
> ... One way to avoid confusion is to use one specific
> letter only as the second letter in digraphs. With the current orthography,
> they don't use w and x, so they could use one of these. But personally, I'd
> find accents more visually pleasing.
Me too:
(bottle,
On 2018/01/23 09:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
Any Kazakh/Qazaq student ambitious enough to study a foreign language
such as English is already sophisticated enough to easily distinguish
differing digraph values between the two languages. English speakers
face distinctions such as the
Phake Nick wrote,
> ... and it is not possible for e.g. a regular American
> user using Windows to simply type them out, at least not
> without prior knowledge about these umlauts.
Regular American users simply don't type umlauts, period. Eccentric
American users needing umlauts, such as
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:35:16 +0800
Phake Nick via Unicode wrote:
> There
> are language-dependent keyboards for French or German with special
> keys or deadkeys that help input these umlauts, but they are language
> dependent and it is not possible for e.g. a regular
It's probably still too difficult to input a character with umlaut for
general people in 2018, like the official Chinese romanization system used
the character "ü", but because it's so hard to be input or process many
people in many occasion just use "v" instead and more recently standarised
"yu"
On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 13:49:46 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> But there's NO standard keyboard in Kazakhstan with the Latin
> alphabet. Those you'll find are cyrillic keyboards with a way to type
> basic Latin. Or keyboards made for other countries.
I believe we're
But there's NO standard keyboard in Kazakhstan with the Latin alphabet.
Those you'll find are cyrillic keyboards with a way to type basic Latin. Or
keyboards made for other countries.
So this is not a good reason at all. In fact Kazakstan would have to create
a keyboard standard for the Latin
On 19/01/18 15:37, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> May be the IDN could accept a new combining diacritic (sort of
> right-side acute accent). After all the Kazakh intent is not to define a
> new separate character but a modification of base letter to create a
> single letter in their alphabet.
"Much ado about apostrophes"
If the apostrophe thing doesn't work out, we might also look forward
to "The Shaming of the Crew", a play in which the advisory panel gets
blamed for not pointing out what they were pointing out all along.
Announcing:
Much ado about apostrophes
A Play
By
William Codesphere
Coming soon to a theatre near you...
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> I don't understand the rationale: ...
Maybe there isn't any.
As Shriramana Sharma wrote earlier,
>> Anyhow, it certainly can be difficult convincing
>> non technical political people.
And that's an understatement.
This article...
For the root zone may be, but not formally rejected by IDN, and the Kazakh
zone could accept it without problem. It also has the advantage of allowing
cleaner collation and contextual text extraction, and it also allows better
placement of the combining character with its base in some dedicated
On 1/19/2018 5:42 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Hmmm that character exists already at 0+0315 (a combining comma
above right). It would work for the new Kazah orthographic system,
including for collation purpose. I don't think IDN rejects this
combining version.
This is also ineligible for
On 1/19/2018 5:37 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
May be the IDN could accept a new combining diacritic (sort of
right-side acute accent). After all the Kazakh intent is not to define
a new separate character but a modification of base letter to create a
single letter in their alphabet.
So a
Michael -
Lemme know when you're ready to print. I have a huge bag of leftover
apostrophes I can send you.
On 1/19/2018 5:51 AM, Andrew West via Unicode wrote:
On 19 January 2018 at 13:19, Michael Everson via Unicode
wrote:
I’d go talk with him :-) I published Alice
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo