On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 20:55:39 -0500
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" wrote:
> On 1/28/19 2:31 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > But the question is how important those are in daily life. I'm not
> > sure why the double-click selection behavior is so much more of a
> > problem for
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 10:25, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode
wrote:
>
> The overall tag proposal had the desired effect: The original proposal
> to hijack some unused bytes in UTF-8 was defeated, and the tags itself
> were not actually used and therefore could be depreciated.
And the tag characters
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 21:10:19 -0500
"Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode" wrote:
> On 1/28/19 3:58 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> > Interestingly, bringing this word breaker into line with TUS in the
> > UK may well be in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
> >
> > Richard.
>
> OK, I've got
On 2019-01-29 5:10 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
I thought we had established that someone had mentioned it on this list,
at some time during the past three weeks. Can someone look up what post
that was? I don't have time to go through scores of messages, and there
is no search facility.
Doug Ewell wrote,
> I can't speak for Andrew, but I strongly suspect he implemented this as
> a proof of concept, not to declare himself the Maker of Standards.
BabelPad also offers plain-text styling via math-alpha conversion,
although this feature isn’t newly added. Users interested in
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> We already have a well-established standard for doing this kind of
> things...
I thought we were having this discussion because none of the existing
methods, no matter how well documented, has been accepted on a
widespread basis as "the" standard.
Some people dislike
Philippe Verdy replied to James Kass:
> You're not very explicit about the Tag encoding you use for these
> styles.
Of course, it was Andrew West who implemented the styling mechanism in a
beta release of BabelPad. James was just reporting on it.
> And what is then the interest compared to
Hi,
Terminal emulators are a powerful tool used by many people for various
tasks. Most terminal emulators' bugtracker has a request to add RTL /
BiDi support. Unicode has supported BiDi for about 20 years now.
Still, the intersection of these two fields isn't solved. Even some
Unicode experts
Martin J. Dürst wrote:
> Here's a little dirty secret about these tag characters: They were
> placed in one of the astral planes explicitly to make sure they'd use
> 4 bytes per tag character, and thus quite a few bytes for any actual
> complete tags. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2482 for
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 01:50:31PM +0100, Egmont Koblinger via Unicode wrote:
> Terminal emulators are a powerful tool used by many people for various
> tasks. Most terminal emulators' bugtracker has a request to add RTL /
> BiDi support.
[...]
> Some terminal emulators decided to run the BiDi
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:50:31 +0100
> From: Egmont Koblinger via Unicode
>
> In turn, vim, emacs and friends stand there clueless, not knowing
> how to do BiDi in terminals.
This is inaccurate: Emacs (at least the brand known as "GNU Emacs")
supports bidirectional editing in text terminals
> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 13:50:31 +0100
> From: Egmont Koblinger via Unicode
>
> [1] https://terminal-wg.pages.freedesktop.org/bidi/
Interesting document, thanks for writing it.
My personal experience with bringing BiDi to Emacs led me to a firm
conclusion that BiDi support by terminal
Yes, great. But as I've said, we've ALREADY got a
default-ignorable-in-display (if implemented right)
way of doing such things.
And not only do we already have one, but it is also
standardised in multiple standards from different
standards institutions. See for instance "ISO/IEC 8613-6,
On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 01:55, James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
>
> This bold new concept was not mine. When I tested it
> here, I was using the tag encoding recommended by the developer.
Congratulations James, you've successfully interchanged tag-styled
plain text over the internet with no
On 2019/01/24 23:49, Andrew West via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:59, James Kass via Unicode
> wrote:
> We were told time and time again when emoji were first proposed that
> they were required for encoding for interoperability with Japanese
> telecoms whose usage had spilled over
On 2019/01/28 05:03, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> A new beta of BabelPad has been released which enables input, storing,
> and display of italics, bold, strikethrough, and underline in plain-text
> using the tag characters method described earlier in this thread. This
> enhancement is
16 matches
Mail list logo
