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
Hi,
A quick question relating to the Byte Order Mark of UCS-2. If its absent is
it safe to assume any particular order (i.e. Big or Little Endian?).
I am writing a function to rearrange from Big to little endian but without a
byte order mark I'm not sure what the order is. Is there any
Marco,
I still remember the Univac I which had memory tubes about the size of your
fist (The Univac II used core). The 1401 however, was a fully
transistorized computer. It used core memory which ranged in size from 1400
to 16,000 6 bit bytes. (Unicode on 6 bit machines is another challenge).
There is an RFC about UTF-16 that explains this:
If the text is labeled by the protocol as
charset=UTF-16 then the first two bytes are the byte order mark
charset=UTF-16BE then it is big-endian and the first two bytes are just text
charset=UTF-16LE then it is little-endian and the first two
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
If you don't have any clue about the byte order, but you know it is
UTF-16, then assume BE.
Then why is ICU mapping UTF-16 to UTF16_PlatformEndian and not
UTF16_BigEndian? I know that was a difference between ICU and my library,
and when I asked this question a while ago I was told that despite
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:59:43 -0700
To: Tomas McGuinness [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Byte Order Marks
At 02:58 PM 4/19/01 +0200, you wrote:
If its absent is it safe to assume any particular order (i.e. Big or
Little Endian?)
The default order is Big
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
Yves Arrouye wrote:
If you don't have any clue about the byte order, but you know it is
UTF-16, then assume BE.
Then why is ICU mapping UTF-16 to UTF16_PlatformEndian and not
UTF16_BigEndian?
ICU does not do Unicode-signature or other encoding detection as part of a converter.
When you
Well this is just a technical question, that I imagine that unicoder find a
way of resolving. I am finishing a volume of a journal that I am editing,
and one text has a summary in arabic - with Office2000 used on a Win98
Pan-European platform I can enter the summary letter for letter, but where
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Markus Scherer wrote:
On the other hand, if you get a file from your platform and it is in 16-bit Unicode,
then you would appreciate the convenience of the auto-endian alias.
But nothing should be spitting out platform-endian UTF-16! In the
case that
17 matches
Mail list logo
