So the variation of shape (vertical stick, half-ring, curved comma, or
classical 5-shaped) and is attachment or not (below the letter) is
perceived as being less significant than the horizontal placement of the
cedilla (centered or below the right-most stem).
Only Romanian seems to insist to use
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 4 Jul 2013, at 03:56, Phillips, Addison addi...@lab126.com wrote:
I don't disagree with the potential need for changing the decomposition.
That discussion seems clear and is only muddled by talking about variant,
All this discussion if going to nowhere.
What would be more decisive would the fact that these shapes for celillas
had constrasting uses in any language. As far as I can tell, this has not
been demonstrated (not even in Romanian).
So the proposal is to disunify characters that are already encoded,
On 2013/07/05 16:04, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Michael Eversonever...@evertype.com wrote:
The problem is in pretending that a cedilla and a comma below are equivalent
because in some script fonts in France or Turkey routinely write some sort of
: unicode Unicode Discussion
Aihe: Re: Latvian and Marshallese Ad Hoc Report (cedilla and comma below)
...
I fought this battle back when I supported the Romanian disunification of their
letters from the Turkish ones. We're just finishing the job now, as far as I
can see.
Michael Everson * http
On 5 Jul 2013, at 11:27, Erkki I Kolehmainen e...@iki.fi wrote:
And I'm sorry for having supported you then, since the Romanians claimed at
the time that they could not live with a font variation, since they needed to
be able to have a distinction between s and t with cedilla and comma below
2013/7/5 Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com
On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:04, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is in pretending that a cedilla and a comma below are
equivalent because in some script fonts in France or Turkey routinely write
some sort of undifferentiated tick for
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Lisa Moore li...@us.ibm.com wrote:
And it's a pretty easy guess that there are quite a few more users
with Japanese and Chinese filenames in the same file system than
users with Latvian and Marshallese filenames in the same file
system, both because both
On 4 Jul 2013, at 03:56, Phillips, Addison addi...@lab126.com wrote:
I don't disagree with the potential need for changing the decomposition. That
discussion seems clear and is only muddled by talking about variant, language
sensitive rendering. That isn't the only consideration, right?
No,
On 2013/06/22 0:32, Michael Everson wrote:
On 21 Jun 2013, at 16:20, Khaled Hosnykhaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Yeah, I don't believe that you can language-tag individual file names for such
display as that is markup.
Why do you need to? You only need one language, it is not like file names
On 3 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Martin J. Dürst due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp wrote:
Quite a few people might expect their Japanese filenames to appear with a
Japanese font/with Japanese glyph variants, and their Chinese filenames to
appear with a Chinese font/Chinese glyph variants. But that's never how
Martin wrote:
Quite a few people might expect their Japanese filenames to appear with a
Japanese font/with Japanese glyph variants, and their Chinese filenames to
appear with a Chinese font/Chinese glyph variants. But that's never how this
was planned, and that's not how it works today.
On 7/3/2013 2:04 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 3 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Martin J. Dürst due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp wrote:
Quite a few people might expect their Japanese filenames to appear with a
Japanese font/with Japanese glyph variants, and their Chinese filenames to
appear with a Chinese
And it's a pretty easy guess that there are quite a few more users
with Japanese and Chinese filenames in the same file system than
users with Latvian and Marshallese filenames in the same file
system, both because both Chinese and Japanese are used by many more
people than Latvian or
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:27:49AM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 18:24, Richard Wordingham
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The X11 restriction of one character per key stroke is not so easy to get
round.
Get them to fix X11.
It looks like you think that X11 is
About positioning:
Michael, you mentioned the issue of positioning of the diacritic, this
is a font issue not a character issue. I mentioned Navajo ogonek
because that is how it solves the issue of positioning, custom Navajo
fonts have centered ogoneks. Locale aware fonts and applications could
do
My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITALLOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode. (Dont use terms like MARSHALLESE [CAPITALLOWERCASE] LETTER [MN] -- such entities dont exist from a character
On 21 Jun 2013, at 07:01, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
About positioning:
Michael, you mentioned the issue of positioning of the diacritic, this
is a font issue not a character issue. I mentioned Navajo ogonek
because that is how it solves the issue of positioning, custom Navajo
On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:23, Jörg Knappen jknap...@web.de wrote:
My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters
Micheal Everson schrieb:
My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with proper cedilla attached.
Maybe
On 21 Jun 2013, at 09:09, Jörg Knappen jknap...@web.de wrote:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with proper cedilla attached.
Maybe my english
Micheal Everson schrieb:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA
ATTACHED for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with proper cedilla attached.
Maybe my english wasn't perfect here; of course I think
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 21.06.2013 11:17, schrieb Jörg Knappen:
The first reason is to solve this problem completely and not only to
resolve a Latvian-Marshallese conflict and leave some other
exceptions for later.
The second reason is that the letter g, k, l, m, r
On 21 Jun 2013, at 11:26, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl lyrate...@gmx.de wrote:
Why not instead encoding a new combining MARSHALLESE CEDILLA
that ought to be used with g, k, l, m, r and their uppercase counterparts?
Because then there would be tree confusable ways of writing all this data. N
WITH
Dominikus Dittes Scherkl schrieb:
Why not instead encoding a new combining MARSHALLESE CEDILLA
that ought to be used with g, k, l, m, r and their uppercase counterparts?
This is not a good idea, because the combining MARSHALLESE CEDILLA can be
combined with the letter C, too.
This creates all
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
On 21 Jun 2013, at 14:06, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not the character model that is not reliable, it is the application.
If you application doesn't support locale settings and locale specific
font
On 21 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Try this in the file system.
The file system embeds visual rendering of text? You probably mean the file
manager
The Finder.
my file manager shows me locale-dependant glyph variants without any special
setup (apart
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:00:20PM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
Yeah, I don't believe that you can language-tag individual file names
for such display as that is markup.
Why do you need to? You only need one language, it is not like file
names are multilingual high quality text books where
On 21 Jun 2013, at 16:20, Khaled Hosny khaledho...@eglug.org wrote:
Yeah, I don't believe that you can language-tag individual file names for
such display as that is markup.
Why do you need to? You only need one language, it is not like file names are
multilingual high quality text books
This will also happen with the new confusable introduced by a new separate
and undecomposable letter... I don't see where your point is.
Already Marshellese documents are encoded using the existing cedilla, even
if you don't like it, and it still works correctly for most users, even if
the cedila
Hi.
I personally do not see why these supplemental characters cannot be created,
as done for other Latin-1 characters
(http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf
I'm a bit confused though, and have a question: how are characters from current
Marshallese texts and from new texts with the
On 2013-06-19, Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The X11 restriction of one character per key stroke is not so easy to
get round. Some applications don't cooperate with work-arounds such as
ibus, and I find ibus unreliable enough that I want alternative methods
for
On 19 Jun 2013, at 18:24, Richard Wordingham richard.wording...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
The X11 restriction of one character per key stroke is not so easy to get
round.
Get them to fix X11.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Marshallese uses the letters L/l, M/m, N/n, and O/o with cedilla.
The Ad Hoc http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13128-latvian-marshal-adhoc.pdf
concluded that encoding
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE N
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
Marshallese uses the letters L/l, M/m, N/n, and O/o with cedilla.
The Ad Hoc http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13128-latvian-marshal-adhoc.pdf
concluded that encoding
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
LATIN
On 19 Jun 2013, at 07:54, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
Marshallese uses the letters L/l, M/m, N/n, and O/o with cedilla.
The Ad Hoc http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2013/13128-latvian-marshal-adhoc.pdf
concluded that encoding
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L WITH CEDILLA
LATIN SMALL
Do you mean that these characters will be encoded without permitting
canonnical decompositions (because it would violate the equivalences with
Latvian/Livonian) ?
If so, what you want is just to explicitly say that these cedillas for
Marshallese (or other uses) should be attached and not
On 19 Jun 2013, at 09:04, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, the cedilla can also have a proper cedilla form as opposed to
the Latvian or Livonian comma below form in transliteration systems.
This has nothing to do with the Marshallese/Latvian conflict, though.
ALA-LC
On 19 Jun 2013, at 09:59, Jörg Knappen jknap...@web.de wrote:
Somehow, the compromise solution found at the ad hoc meeting sounds fishy,
because the is no such thing as
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L or LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE N (to be
equipped with a cedilla).
It is not the
2013/6/19 Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com
On 19 Jun 2013, at 09:59, Jörg Knappen jknap...@web.de wrote:
Somehow, the compromise solution found at the ad hoc meeting sounds
fishy, because the is no such thing as
LATIN CAPITAL LETTER MARSHALLESE L or LATIN SMALL LETTER MARSHALLESE N
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 07:54, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
How would one rationalize using one diacritic U+0327 with M/m and O/o but
not with L/l and N/n in Marshallese?
The same way one would
The COMMAN BELOW / CEDILLA problem is typically something that probably
cannot be solved in Unicode in a way to satisfy every possible aspect.[^1]
These problems are an artifact of the historical development of Unicode,
and as a standard, stability issues seem to be high priority. Higher
priority
On 19 Jun 2013, at 13:41, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
The same way one would rationalize using precomposed ãẽĩñõũỹ (aeinouy with
tilde) but a necessarily de-composed g̃ (g with tilde) in Guaraní.
This is wrong: ãẽĩñõũỹ normalize to use U+0303 in NFD, so they
canonically
On 6/19/2013 6:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
Only in text which has been decomposed. Not all text gets decomposed.
All text may get decomposed without warning.
As data is shipped around and processed in various parts of a
distributed system, nobody can make any safe assumptions on the
On 6/19/2013 6:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
The issue of cedilla can easily be solved at a higher level, font technologies
like OpenType can easily display glyphs in Latvian or Livonia and different
glyphs for Marshallese.
Only in environments which permit language tagging. I'd like
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:36:16 +0100
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
On 19 Jun 2013, at 13:41, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com wrote:
If we don't want additional confusing characters maybe we should
have CGJ, ZWJ or ZWNJ + combining cedilla (or any other similar
sequence) to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:12:30 +0100
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
First off, what does a Marshallese keyboard look like anyway? Second,
well, maybe, but I am still convinced that this is the best solution.
Keyboards aren't that hard to implement.
The X11 restriction of one
47 matches
Mail list logo
