Kenneth Whistler wrote:
we can
calculate the weight as being *approximately* 9.05 pounds
(avoirdupois) [or 10.99 troy pounds].
Apparently a weighty publication, that forthcoming Unicode standard...
Cheers,
Otto Stolz
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
[...]
Of course, further weight corrections need to be applied if reading
the standard *below* sea level or in a deep cave.
I hope it will not be consider pedantic to observe that the mass or weight
of a book do not change depending on whether someone is reading it or
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
the mass or weight
of a book do not change depending on whether someone is reading it or not.
Consequently, the same weight corrections need to be applied also if someone
*throws* the standard in a deep cave.
Beware: When the book is thrown at a large speed, the
Otto Stolz wrote:
Beware: When the book is thrown at a large speed, the relativistic
effects must be taken into account. I hope that the editors took
pains to find a wording that will not upset anybody to the extend
that he would throw the book away at a considerable fraction of
the speed of
Ken recently said:
Not to disagree publicly with Michael or Mark on this, but
in the interests of accuracy, I should point out that if the
rest mass of the Unicode 4.0 publication is assumed to be exactly
4.1 kg (which then would, indeed, also be the case on our
moon, or even a Jovian moon),
I certainly think it would be good published with a leather cover,
onion-skin paper, and gilt edges, yes. First we have to have Ken
divide it into verses, though.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 01:19 PM, Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
Hope they can reduce the weight next time by change the type of the
Hope they can reduce the weight next time by change the type of the
paper. My Bible is about 500 pages (about 1500+ pages) more than the
unicode 3.0 standard but only 50% of it's thick. Same as my
Chinese/English dictionary.
Otto Stolz wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
we can
calculate the
We've asked. But you need to understand that publishers
have their own rules and constraints. Paper is bought in
huge quantities by publishers, and special purpose papers
(such as lightweight, thin, high-opacity papers used in
dictionaries) are expensive and carefully planned for.
As important as
At 17:50 +0100 2003-03-11, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
PLEASE NOTE: Some quantum physics theories suggest that when the consumer
is not directly observing this book, it may cease to exist or will exist
only in a vague and undermined state.
Fortunately, someone is always reading the Unicode Standard.
At 12:45 -0800 2003-03-11, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
As important as we all think the Unicode Standard is, its press run
is still rather small compared to those for Bibles and dictionaries!
Just as long as it is properly sewn and doesn't splinter into fragments
--
Michael Everson * * Everson
At 14:15 -0800 2003-03-11, Doug Ewell wrote:
What I want to know is, will the book and CD once again feature images
of scripts that *cannot* be written with Unicode? The list is getting
shorter.
It will.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
John H. Jenkins wrote:
I certainly think it would be good published with a leather cover,
onion-skin paper, and gilt edges, yes. First we have to have Ken
divide it into verses, though.
I thought we already have verses dividied in Chapter 3. Those
C1-C13/D1-2 stuff
I was pleased to receive my copy today -- a bit delayed I guess
because it had my old address on it. Of interest -- of course -- was
Debbie Anderson's article on the Script Encoding Initiative. But
that's not why I'm commenting.
In the interests of internationalization, I suppose I should
, 2003 09:36
Subject: Encoding: Unicode Quarterly Newsletter
I was pleased to receive my copy today -- a bit delayed I guess
because it had my old address on it. Of interest -- of course -- was
Debbie Anderson's article on the Script Encoding Initiative. But
that's not why I'm commenting
Not to disagree publicly with Michael or Mark on this, but
in the interests of accuracy, I should point out that if the
rest mass of the Unicode 4.0 publication is assumed to be exactly
4.1 kg (which then would, indeed, also be the case on our
moon, or even a Jovian moon), and ignoring any
15 matches
Mail list logo
