John Hudson wrote (way back on 2001-04-15):
Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft, and
no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being added
to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
OpenType
At 2001-04-18 08:49:40 -0600 John H. Jenkins wrote:
The fundamental problem is that *everywhere* in the TrueType spec it is
assumed that glyph indices are two bytes, and there are innumerable
tables that reference glyph indices. Basically TrueType would have to
be rewritten from scratch.
11 Digit Boy wrote:
And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick
for Kanji. I mean, how many times are you going to keep
making that water radical?
This has been debated a lot of times. There were two separate stories about
this.
The first one was whether ideograph components
11 Digit Boy asked:
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 $B!_(J 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS $B!_(J LO_SURROGS = 1114112
Notice, however that they are characters, not glyphs. Also notice that they
are slightly fewer
11 Digit Boy asked:
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 × 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS × LO_SURROGS = 1114112
There are other ways to calculate:
17 * 65536 = 1,114,112
0x10 + 1 = 1,114,112 (decimal)
But we really
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 08:10 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
James Kass wrote:
No. The new cmap supports more than double-byte in order to access
non-BMP encodings. The Glyph IDs (the number/order of the glyphs
in a font) remain locked at 65536 max. Unfortunately this isn't
From: "11 digit boy" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick for Kanji. I
mean, how many times are you going to keep making that water radical?
Its not all that great of a trick as far as I am concerned, but I am glad
you like it.
The known world is going
At 3:19 PM -0700 4/20/01, Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 03:50 PM 4/20/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say 0 and 1 are adequate. I find this discussion rather pointless
since we all already know that ASCII is adequate if the given premise
is that ASCII is adequate. I don't see what's there to
In the early 1990s I did a small piece of research on devising a method of
inputting text in the Esperanto language into a PC using an ordinary English
keyboard.
Some aspects of that research now appear to be relevant to the present
discussion of implementing unicode 3.1 on older computer
Edward Cherlin wrote
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
But they did
quote from the Science Museum
"Analytical Engine Mill by Henry Prevost Babbage, 1910.
Babbage bequeathed his
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
Well, I've seen *something* in the (British) Science Museum, but whether
it's complete, or works, I can't remember.
It might be truer to say
From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Which, to the extent which this is true (show me how you plan to
handle The Art of Computer Programming or the Dragon book, for
example), is equally true of upper case. Capitalizing sentences is
redundant with punctuation, and any additional
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Errr - my point is:
"If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
What's yours?
Depends on who you're talking to and what you
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Errr - my point is:
"If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
What's yours?
Depends on who you're talking to and what
Perhaps I should have gone with C, but the point was your
English-processing English-commented Perl programs are in ASCII. You
sent out an ASCII email. If you were (?) English
Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:43:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first set that covers all the required
characters. (But 8859-1 is enough for everyday use.)
all your files would
At 03:50 PM 4/20/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say 0 and 1 are adequate. I find this discussion rather pointless
since we all already know that ASCII is adequate if the given premise
is that ASCII is adequate. I don't see what's there to discuss.
We are just trying to see if tautologies
Also, you're part of the problem. "8859-1 is enough for everyday use."
Yes, and rather proud of it, in the same way as opposition is
the way to healthy democracy. Also, we are not the guilty ones,
we use what's given to us, I would say the guilty ones are the
"adequate" designers of the
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:09:30PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
that the extra symbols can make the read a little easier, but they are not
considered[1] necessary. We were discussing adequcy, not excellence, and to
me the two are quite distinct.
THEN WHY WASTE A WHOLE BIT ON UPPER CASE? THEY
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However, I'm a bit
confused as to what you're specifically talking about
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However,
How on earth can 'ideographs' be synthesized from consonants and
vowels? Moreover, when I wrote that 'CJK don't always go together', I
wasn't talking about Chinese characters(ideographs) at all. I was talking
about Korean Hangul only (I think it was pretty clear in the part of
my message
Carl Brown wrote:
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
idea.
Thanks, Carl, but if "these folks" is me, I don't even know what an IBM 1401
is, let alone
: 'Carl W. Brown'; 'Kenneth Whistler'
Subject: RE: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
Carl Brown wrote:
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
MC Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
MC doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
MC Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
MC BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support
MC on Linux, but I know that projects are
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: benefits of unicode
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
I wonder if we could add a page in this vein to the Unicode site, or
failing that, to Tex's Benefits
From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
THEN WHY WASTE A WHOLE BIT ON UPPER CASE? THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT
NECCESSARY AND I HAVE FREQUENTLY SEEN PEOPLE NOT USE THEM WHEN
AVAILABLE.
Good point. We didn't need 'em to get "Huckleberry Finn", so how
necessary can they be?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 06:37:35PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
P.S. They are needed for capitalizing sentences, titles, and names, of
course!
So? In your previous email, you said:
The message carried by the most beautifully typeset works of the
English language can be communicated
At 11:34 -0700 2001-04-17, Edward Cherlin wrote:
What about Pali written in any of Sinhala, Thai, Burmese,
Devanagari, and extended Latin scripts? I know that there is a
problem for Sanskrit written in Tibetan and other Asian scripts.
What is the question?
--
Michael Everson ** Everson
Peter Constable wrote:
..., the old 386's
... may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
That is indeed a problem. It's not one that technologists are good at
solving, if for no other reason than because they have little option but to
develop for
James Kass wrote:
..., the old 386's
... may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that it would be
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
At 05:18 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
There should be an English version of that page at the same site.
Michael Everson has a proposal for the script which can be accessed
from the Roadmap page at:
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/bmp-roadmap-table.html
(I think it's Michael Everson's
James Kass wrote:
[...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Funding makes the world
I've done it numerous times, and I still do it on occasion. I still call
it
a "hack", though, since that's what it is, in many cases at least: The
cmap
in TrueType fonts for Windows uses Unicode. People think they're putting
their favourite character on an 8-bit codepoint, but in the font
Peter Constable wrote:
In newer software, our custom-encoded font practices are having
their true identity revealed. They're hacks.
[...]
If the quarriers hadn't conformed to the standards established by the
architects, the pyramids would never have been built.
If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't
Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
Pre-composed Latin
Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
systems, like Win 9x, the source page in true Unicode would
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely right.
The only possible way to display Unicode is to map
At 08:30 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
I couldn't bring myself to call a masterpiece like mayan.ttf a hack:
http://www.themeworld.com/cgi-bin/preview.pl/fonts/mayan.zip
(Mayan is on the Roadmap to Plane One, but it doesn't look as
though there's been any detailed proposal yet.)
I believe
On 04/18/2001 10:30:56 AM "James Kass" wrote:
Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the
slightest.
But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of
Unicode,
as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to
glyph
ID 20, which is
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
MC
I thought that the PUA was being considered here as a place
to put the extra
*glyphs* needed internally by a rendering engine -- not as
a direct mean of
encoding text.
JK
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code
Peter Constable wrote:
Why would you encode presentation form glyphs in the PUA if you don't
expect them to be encoded directly in documents. "Smart font"
rendering systems map character codes into glyph ids, and so these
glyphs don't need to be encoded in the cmap.
I may be wrong, but my
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
I shudder at this characterization, truly. :-)
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
At 10:48 AM 4/18/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely
take lots of memory.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Michael (michka) Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:16 AM
To: Marco Cimarosti; Unicode List; 'James Kass'
Cc: Peter Constable
Subject: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits
Peter Constable wrote:
Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
Levity helps, too.
If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
systems,
Marco wrote:
James Kass wrote:
[...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Reason #1
Peter Constable wrote:
In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
code points).
This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch
on. James is absolutely right.
Sorry, I have been quite
From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
At 2:04 PM -0500 4/17/01, Ayers, Mike wrote:
From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
One of the strongest benefits of Unicode is that it supports adequate
*monolingual* computing for the first time in any language
At 9:44 AM +0100 4/18/01, Michael Everson wrote:
At 11:34 -0700 2001-04-17, Edward Cherlin wrote:
What about Pali written in any of Sinhala, Thai, Burmese,
Devanagari, and extended Latin scripts? I know that there is a
problem for Sanskrit written in Tibetan and other Asian scripts.
What is
Carl Brown said, in support of Michka cringing about segments:
I agree.
If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write Unicode for the
IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the bill. Seriously I would never
agree to such a ludicrous idea.
Exactly. How about an Apple II or a
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Compared to the memory requirements for video, sound, and for data
caching on servers, the memory requirements for Unicode per se
tend to be down in the noise -- with the exception of those big
CJK fonts.
Well, CJK don't always go together in
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
michka
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
From: "Jungshik Shin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
At 08:30 -0500 2001-04-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Others in this category -- no widely accepted standard other than Unicode,
but lots of non-standard code pages in use -- probably include Ethiopic,
Burmese, Lao, Syriac, Old Italic, Gothic, Deseret, Runic, Ogham, IPA
(definitely), Thaana,
is
necessarily true for every other language in modern use. More than a
century of typewriters and computers has inured us to the hardship of
less than publication- and calligraphic-quality documents, but has
only slightly changed the standards for publication itself.
One of the strongest benefits
inured us to the hardship of
less than publication- and calligraphic-quality documents, but has
only slightly changed the standards for publication itself.
One of the strongest benefits of Unicode is that it supports adequate
*monolingual* computing for the first time in any language
I.S. 434:1999 is a standard for Ogham.
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/is434.pdf
Out of curiousity, in how many products has that standard been implemented?
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script
Whether the PUA or custom code pages are used, some kind of
software which converts to and from Unicode would be
helpful to assure that users of older hardware can continue
to communicate with the "modern" world.
[snip]
since i'm not a programmer, I'm not able to throw together such a
On 04/16/2001 09:02:16 PM unicode-bounce wrote:
How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches
up,
or you build your own (e.g. Graphite) and build apps that work on that.
I
suspect (or, at least, certainly hope) we'll see progress in this regard
in
IE 6.
Waiting
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Aesthetic concerns are nice, but the English-reading community has quite
firmly set them in the "optional" category. For at least one language,
7 bits was plenty.
Picking up something slightly more complex, but not high budget or
than a
century of typewriters and computers has inured us to the hardship of
less than publication- and calligraphic-quality documents, but has
only slightly changed the standards for publication itself.
One of the strongest benefits of Unicode is that it supports adequate
*monolingual
Peter Constable wrote:
Andrew C.
This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
where a precomposed
Quoting John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft,
and
no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being
added
to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
OpenType mark-to-base and
Quoting James Kass [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Waiting isn't much of an option, the users need results now.
Even when the rendering technology catches up, the old 386's
and such that are in use in places like the Sudan may not be able
to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
Andrew also mentioned custom (8-bit) code pages, which are widely
used...
actually i don't think they're widely used.
Widely used in general rather than any specific custom code
page use.
But I'd rather not get into Sudanese politics at the moment.
You
Quoting "Michael (michka) Kaplan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: "Andrew Cunningham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, I guess this is one of those huge "maybe" type questions, since
there
is no universal definition of what "supports Unicode x.xx" means. Here
are
some sample posers:
LOL
yep i
Hi James,
Quoting James Kass [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Many African adaptations of the Latin script require
characters which aren't precomposed in Unicode.
yep, you can add a number of australian aboriginal languages to that list as
well
One example of a common problem is with combining
This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
where a precomposed form does not exist?
There are literally
At 08:44 PM 4/15/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of languages with this
issue. There's at least one language in Peru that has to stack diacritics
three high!
How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches up,
or you
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
Andrew C.
and if only they did allow latin script support in uniscribe but i
guess support for african langaguageds is extremely low on their list of
priorities.
Michka
I would not ever presume such a thing... what issues in latin scripts are
you
Michka and Tex wrote:
michka
Now if I could figure out how come you get to quote whole messages and I
don't, I'll be *really* happy!
tex
I was not able to and it makes me very unhappy. Since you were on the
to-list, you got an immediate copy. We prattled on and then I got a
bounce
On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 11:12:40PM -0400, Tex Texin wrote:
I would rather say simply that Unicode is the only character set
that exists for certain markets. I believe this is true, but
would like to have at least a few examples of scripts or
languages that have no other code pages but
Tex, would you please add this entry to your Benefits of Unicode page:
"It allows you to overcome bigoted prohibitions on mailing lists".
In fact, it is enough that you choose proper code points (e.g. U+203A from
the General Punctuation block, or U+0455, U+0435, U+0445 from th
Marco,
Cute! I hope people have UTF-8 viewers. I had to manually switch
to UTF-8 in my mailer, so at first I was a bit confused.
At least until it becomes more standard, Unicode makes a great
encryption scheme to overcome silly filters.
tex
Tex, would you please add this entry to your Benefits
I wonder if this post will survive the quotebot.
It might help if you create a boilerplate signature that's really long --
that would push the proportion of new vs. quoted text in your favour.
- Peter
---
Peter
I was not able to and it makes me very unhappy. Since you were on the
to-list, you got an immediate copy. We prattled on and then I got a
bounce message which did not indicate the mail that was being rejected.
Ah, this explains why I am starting to see so many responses to messages I
I would rather say simply that Unicode is the only character set
that exists for certain markets. I believe this is true, but
would like to have at least a few examples of scripts or
languages that have no other code pages but Unicode.
I have in mind Inuktitut and perhaps Byzantine music, but
Tex Texin scripsit:
I would rather say simply that Unicode is the only character set
that exists for certain markets. I believe this is true, but
would like to have at least a few examples of scripts or
languages that have no other code pages but Unicode.
I have in mind Inuktitut and
Damn! Peter, now there will be a signature bot.
We need a separate list for discussing bot-workarounds
Thanks for the comments on languages w/o standard code pages. I will
add a bennie to the benefit list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It might help if you create a boilerplate signature that's
From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh sure. The point is that ISCII does exist, but Microsoft does not
support it: therefore, if you are going to do Indic languages,
you must have Unicode (for Microsoft environments, anyway).
Actually, this is not really true... Windows 2000 and XP both
The document we are discussing is:
http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/UnicodeBenefits.html
John,
Right, I quite understand the point about Microsoft support, I was
resisting the focus solely on Microsoft though.
Let me try it another way, that perhaps will satisfy everyone.
Are there similar
I could see defining "code page support" as meaning that the code
page can be used as the default system code page, to distinguish it
from products that just convert from the code page to the system one
when the data is imported/exported.
Original Message
Subject: Re
Michka,
The fact that a product supports Unicode and does not support another
code
page used in some region, does not mean that the vendor
supports that region, nor does it mean if they decide to support the
region that it would be only with Unicode...
tex
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
From: "Tex Texin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I had some examples from IBM, Sun, HP, Unisys, etc. then
the benefit would not read like Microsoft is all that matters.
Since there are locales that do not have specific code pages recognized by
other vendors, I think you already have the proof you are
Tex Texin scripsit:
I could see defining "code page support" as meaning that the code
page can be used as the default system code page, to distinguish it
from products that just convert from the code page to the system one
when the data is imported/exported.
Right. Otherwise you might as
Michael,
Isn't this covered by the second benefit on the page?
Reduced development costs, etc
tex
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
It DOES, however, underscore the fact that Unicode support is so much easier
than supporting every random code page that the only reasonable way vendors
From: "Tex Texin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Isn't this covered by the second benefit on the page?
Reduced development costs, etc
I guess with real-world examples it seems that its a bit more explicit of a
benefit. At this point, anyone who does not
- Original Message -
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It DOES, however, underscore the fact that Unicode support is so much
easier
than supporting every random code page that the only reasonable way
vendors
can keep up with every single market is to have a good story
From: "Andrew Cunningham" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
true, personally i'd rather seem Microsft complete their unicode support
first before doing anything with other character sets ... quite a few
years
off full support for unicode 3.0 and 3.1
Well, I guess this is one of those huge "maybe" type
Thanks Suzanne, I think I agree, but let's clarify-
I wasn't following all of the thread and so Michka's comments
are to me without context.
I know Microsoft does good things with Unicode and pioneering
internationalization for new markets. I wouldn't cite Microsoft's
support of only Unicode in
Ah, well the point in this case is that going forward, Microsoft has made a
specific decision to make sure that new languages do not use the "backwards
compatibility" mechanism of default system code pages. This does indicate
that Unicode is no longer just a feature in an application, it is
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:12:40 -0400
From: "Tex Texin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael (michka) Kaplan"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Suzanne, I think I agree, but let's clarify-
I wasn't following all of the thread and so Michka's comments
are to me without context.
I know
From: "Tex Texin" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you point me to a reference for Microsoft's strategy, that you
mention?
It would be useful to anyone promoting Unicode within an organization.
Just look at the new languages they added --- not a CP_ACP among them! I
overheard the guy who did the talks
Am 2001-02-24 um 08:00 hat Tex Texin geschrieben:
I have put the page up at:
http://i18n.homepage.com/UnicodeBenefits.html
I'll put further updates there as well.
This page has been moved to:
http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/UnicodeBenefits.html.
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
Otto,
This page has been moved to:
http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/UnicodeBenefits.html.
There is a small mistake in the table. Microsoft is mentioned twice in the "Widespread
industry support..." row.
Ciao, Mike
Yes and no.
It is mentioned once for operating system and once for database.
tex
Mike Lischke wrote:
Otto,
This page has been moved to:
http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/UnicodeBenefits.html.
There is a small mistake in the table. Microsoft is mentioned twice in the
"Widespread
This got bounced back to me at a time when I wasn't paying enough
attention. I hope it isnt't too late to send it again.
At 10:54 PM -0800 2/23/01, Tex Texin wrote:
...someone wrote me that the item:
"Standards insure interoperability and portability by prescribing
conformant behavior."
was
Sorry for coming back so late on an old issue (29 Jan 2001).
I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:
Each different positional form of a letter in Arabic, Syriac or Mongolian
is
encoded with the same code point; the rendering engine must select the
proper form. The same problem in Greek and Hebrew has
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
