.
Michael Everson wrote,
I wasn't talking about that, but if you'd like my opinion, I hate that J too.
Apathy, intolerance, bigotry, death, taxation, ignorance, oppression...
Surely we can reserve our hatred for targets more worthy than
a colleague's variant glyph preferences.
Regards,
James
Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/20/2003 08:37:19 AM:
What would be the purpose of encoding these? I can't think of any.
They certainly don't need to be encoded as distinct characters to use
in a Last Resort font.
Mostly for documentation purpose
Since Unicode is not a glyph encoding
This is not to say that the MESes are unproblematic. To mention just
two points not already mentioned: none of the new math characters
are included even in MES-3 (a, b), despite that all math characters
were supposed to be included
Michael E responded:
That isn't true.
Eeh, well,
At 23:34 +0200 2003-07-19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I'm still convinced that these glyphs are much more informative than
a default glyph showing a ?, a white rectangle, or a black losange
with a mirrored white ?...
Of course they are.
And Unicode also uses these glyphs in the index page for its
On Sunday, July 20, 2003 2:21 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With SVG graphics containing character objects and drawing
primitives
I have no idea what this means. I used Fontographer.
SVG is a W3C-promoted standard for Scalable Vector Graphics,
based on a XML language, and
Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/19/2003 01:24:48 PM:
Isn't this page creating the idea for a specific block of
script-representative glyphs, that could be mapped in plane 14
as special supplementary characters ?
What would be the purpose of encoding these? I can't think of any. They
certainly
On Windows, the cannot find a font for it situation is the NULL glyph.
The
Last Resort font is cool but a Code2000 stab at the actual glyph is
(IMHO)
cooler than both.:-)
Then wouldn't it make sense for Arial Unicode MS to be included with
Windows rather than just with Office?
- Peter
On Sunday, July 20, 2003 3:20 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/19/2003 01:24:48 PM:
Isn't this page creating the idea for a specific block of
script-representative glyphs, that could be mapped in plane 14
as special supplementary characters ?
At 08:20 -0500 2003-07-20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would be the purpose of encoding these? I can't think of any.
They certainly don't need to be encoded as distinct characters to
use in a Last Resort font.
I am certain more people want to interchange the LITTER DUDE than
would want to
6:20 AM
Subject: Re: About the European MES-2 subset
On Windows, the cannot find a font for it situation is the NULL glyph.
The
Last Resort font is cool but a Code2000 stab at the actual glyph is
(IMHO)
cooler than both.:-)
Then wouldn't it make sense for Arial Unicode MS to be included
On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 1:15 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
So fonts containing these glyphs could be designed to display these
glyphs, in a way similar to the current assignment of control
pictures.
Um, that's what the Last Resort font does, outside of Unicode encoding
space. (I don't
On Sunday, July 20, 2003, at 7:37 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Mostly for documentation purpose, but also in most system that want to
be more informative to users missing a font for a particular script.
Michael also judged it to be useful enough to create such a font for
Apple, and Apple thought
On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 4:45 PM, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
A question mark is a sign of a bad conversion from Unicode (to a code
page
that did not contain the character). This would likely happen on the
Mac too
rather than the Last Resort font, wouldn't it?
MS Explorer on the Mac
What would be the purpose of encoding these? I can't think of any.
They certainly don't need to be encoded as distinct characters to use
in a Last Resort font.
Mostly for documentation purpose,
Why bother to encode them as distinct characters? For purposes of
documentation isn't a good
At 09:56 -0600 2003-07-20, John H. Jenkins wrote:
No, it uses the acutal Unicode characters, and just has a huge cmap
that maps everything in Unicode to the glyph for its block.
That is just so cool. :-)
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 19/07/2003 17:32, John Cowan wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But it can be useful to know whether what you are getting is hangul etc,
or an Indian script, or some other script you don't know, or some
symbols or mathematical codes, or else the result of some kind of
encoding conversion
On 20/07/2003 06:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote on 07/19/2003 01:24:48 PM:
Isn't this page creating the idea for a specific block of
script-representative glyphs, that could be mapped in plane 14
as special supplementary characters ?
What would be the purpose of
At 12:38 -0700 2003-07-20, Peter Kirk wrote:
Indeed. Where can I get the Last Resort font for Windows (2000)? If
the answer is nowhere, I guess I am stuck with Arial Unicode MS or
the horrible-looking (the J always grates!) Code2000.
I'll go have a chat with some of my Apple colleagues about
At 12:38 -0700 2003-07-20, Peter Kirk wrote:
Indeed. Where can I get the Last Resort font for Windows (2000)? If
the answer is nowhere, I guess I am stuck with Arial Unicode MS or
the horrible-looking (the J always grates!) Code2000.
I'll go have a chat with some of my Apple colleagues
At 20:50 + 2003-07-20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:38 -0700 2003-07-20, Peter Kirk wrote:
Indeed. Where can I get the Last Resort font for Windows (2000)? If
the answer is nowhere, I guess I am stuck with Arial Unicode MS or
the horrible-looking (the J always grates!) Code2000.
I'll
On 20/07/2003 13:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:38 -0700 2003-07-20, Peter Kirk wrote:
Indeed. Where can I get the Last Resort font for Windows (2000)? If
the answer is nowhere, I guess I am stuck with Arial Unicode MS or
the horrible-looking (the J always grates!) Code2000.
On 18/07/2003 17:42, John Cowan wrote:
Seeing hanzi, hangeul, etc. gets old when you a) can't read the text
and b) suspect it is spam anyhow.
But it can be useful to know whether what you are getting is hangul etc,
or an Indian script, or some other script you don't know, or some
symbols or
On Friday, July 18, 2003 10:18 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I *prefer* Unicode to any subset thereof.
Why such preference? Unicode does not define the charset (which are defined by
ISO10646), but character properties and related algorithms, and (in cooperation with
ISO10646)
At 15:23 +0200 2003-07-19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Unicode does not define the charset (which are defined by ISO10646),
That isn't true. They both define the same character set. (I will not
use the term charset.)
but character properties and related algorithms, and (in cooperation
with ISO10646)
At 16:41 -0700 2003-07-18, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
I am pretty sure you have to be wrong here, Michael. Attend me:
1) API converts from Unicode to the wrong code page
2) API does some sort of work with the string
3) API tries to display the string
How on earth could it from the Last
On Saturday, July 19, 2003 1:55 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm. See http://developer.apple.com/fonts/LastResortFont/ where it
shows glyphs for illegal characters (FFFE/ etc.) as well as
undefined characters (valid code positions which have not been
assigned). I thought
At 20:24 +0200 2003-07-19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Isn't this page creating the idea for a specific block of
script-representative glyphs, that could be mapped in plane 14 as
special supplementary characters ?
Good heavens, no.
It's one thing for me to update this font regularly for Apple when
On Saturday, July 19, 2003 9:15 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So fonts containing these glyphs could be designed to display these
glyphs, in a way similar to the current assignment of control
pictures.
Um, that's what the Last Resort font does, outside of Unicode
encoding
Apple's version of the Last Resort font is a (relatively) normal font.
It just has a cmap that maps lots and lots of characters to the same
glyph. :-)
Deborah Goldsmith
Manager, Fonts / Unicode Liaison
Apple Computer, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Saturday, July 19, 2003, at 12:15 PM, Michael
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But it can be useful to know whether what you are getting is hangul etc,
or an Indian script, or some other script you don't know, or some
symbols or mathematical codes, or else the result of some kind of
encoding conversion error.
Precisely where the Last Resort font
At 00:57 +0200 2003-07-18, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Why is row 03 so resticted? Shouldn't it include those accents and
diacritics that are used by other characters once canonically
decomposed? Or does it imply that MES-2 is only supposed to use
strings if NFC form?
Also, is this list under full
On Friday, July 18, 2003 7:36 AM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 00:57 +0200 2003-07-18, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Why is row 03 so resticted? Shouldn't it include those accents and
diacritics that are used by other characters once canonically
decomposed? Or does it imply that
At 12:16 +0200 2003-07-18, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Is there some work at CEN to align its MES-2 subset into a revized
(MES-2.1 ???) which not only takes into consideration the ISO10646
reference but also its Unicode properties to make this set
self-closed, and actually implementable, at least
Philippe Verdy wrote:
MES-2 is a collection of characters independant of their actual
encoding.
To support MES-2 in a Unicode-compliant application, extra characters
need to be added, notably if the minimum requirement for information
interchange is the NFC form used by XML and HTML related
On 18/07/2003 03:16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I still note that modern Hebrew and Arabic are excluded from MES-2,
as they are not used in any official language in the European Union
or EFTA, or future EU candidates. ...
But they are used in official publications within the EU, those targeted
at
On Friday, July 18, 2003 12:42 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 12:16 +0200 2003-07-18, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Is there some work at CEN to align its MES-2 subset into a revized
(MES-2.1 ???) which not only takes into consideration the ISO10646
reference but also its
On Friday, July 18, 2003 1:13 PM, Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18/07/2003 03:16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I still note that modern Hebrew and Arabic are excluded from MES-2,
as they are not used in any official language in the European Union
or EFTA, or future EU candidates. ...
On 18/07/2003 06:21, Philippe Verdy wrote:
But for these Asian languages, I think it's best to have fonts designed to
handle correctly their corresponding scripts, instead of a giant font poorly
hinted for readability at small sizes, and without support of common
ligatures.
Agreed. Giant fonts
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Agreed. Giant fonts have their uses, e.g. Arial Unicode MS and Code2000
let me get a flavour of complex script pages which I browse to on the
Internet, often by mistake, without having to install special fonts for
scripts I don't read.
However, a font like Last
At 13:35 +0200 2003-07-18, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I note that you prefer the European Multilingual Subset to MES-2.
Is it an extended set that includes MES-2, and fills the holes by
using all characters defined in blocks of some version of the
Unicode set?
It is script-based, not character
At 11:28 -0400 2003-07-18, John Cowan wrote:
However, a font like Last Resort (the world's smallest giant font, as it were)
does that just about as well.
While I hate seeing the Last Resort font show up, I love seeing it
when it does. :-) S much better than ?.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson
At 13:07 +0200 2003-07-18, Kent Karlsson wrote:
This is not to say that the MESes are unproblematic. To mention just
two points not already mentioned: none of the new math characters
are included even in MES-3 (a, b), despite that all math characters
were supposed to be included
That isn't true.
is cool but a Code2000 stab at the actual glyph is (IMHO)
cooler than both.:-)
MichKa
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: About the European MES-2 subset
At 11:28 -0400 2003-07-18, John Cowan
At 15:45 -0700 2003-07-18, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
A question mark is a sign of a bad conversion from Unicode (to a code page
that did not contain the character). This would likely happen on the Mac too
rather than the Last Resort font, wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't. A not a character
Subject: Re: About the European MES-2 subset
At 15:45 -0700 2003-07-18, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
A question mark is a sign of a bad conversion from Unicode (to a code
page
that did not contain the character). This would likely happen on the Mac
too
rather than the Last Resort font, wouldn't
Michael (michka) Kaplan scripsit:
In any case, Code2000 giving some glyph for more cases is still a better
solution.
In any case, if you cannot read any of the languages that use a given
script, you are unlikely to care much what glyph appears, and if it
turns out that you do care, the LR font
On Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:23 PM, Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 17:01 +0100 2003-07-17, William Overington wrote:
Now, I have never heard of the MES-2 whatever that is. However, I
do not have deep knowledge of the various standards which exist.
Could you possibly say some
282 MES-2 is specified by the following ranges of code positions as
indicated for each row...
Philippe Verdy asked:
As most of these characters are canonically decomposable, shouldn't this
list include also the decomposed characters?
Why is row 03 so resticted? Shouldn't it include
On Friday, July 18, 2003 2:18 AM, Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MES-2 was not designed by the UTC, nor did it take any of
these considerations into account. It is not really an
appropriate construct for the Unicode Standard. A more
meaningful way to think of it is: if you want to
49 matches
Mail list logo
