Well, first, it is 17 planes (or have we switched to using hexadecimal
numbers on the Unicode list already?
Second, of course this is in connection with UTF-16. I wasn't involved
when UTF-16 was created, but it must have become clear that 2^16 (^
denotes exponentiation (to the power of))
On 11/26/2012 08:42 PM, Marc Durdin wrote:
Somewhat ironically, both Firefox and Internet Explorer, on my machine
at least, detect this page is encoded with ISO-8859-1 and cp-1252
respectively, instead of UTF-8. It seems they both ignore the XML
prolog which is the only place where the encoding
Simon,
There's no sign of HTML5 on that page. The head of the file matches all
XHTML 1.1 requirements and passes all checks on validator.w3.org. Now, why
would Firefox follow anything from HTML5 spec here?
-Behnam
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Simon Montagu smont...@smontagu.orgwrote:
On
On 2012/11/17 12:54, Buck Golemon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Doug Ewelld...@ewellic.org wrote:
Buck Golemon wrote:
Is it incorrect to say that 0x81 is a non-semantic byte in cp1252, and
to map it to the equally-non-semantic U+81 ?
U+0081 (there are always at least four
There are interviews in Tamil and English language media about
V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai and his work in high school
and later with respect to electronic mail.
A statement issued by MIT will be useful to make things clear.
http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N5/corrections.html
A brief published on Jan. 11
On 11/27/2012 11:19 AM, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ wrote:
Simon,
There's no sign of HTML5 on that page. The head of the file matches all
XHTML 1.1 requirements and passes all checks on validator.w3.org
http://validator.w3.org. Now, why would Firefox follow anything from
HTML5 spec here?
As I
Buck Golemon b...@yelp.com:
In summary, all browsers agree that it decodes to U+81. Opera initially
thought it was undefined, but changed their mind in version 12 (the
current version).
Yes, it was changed to become compatible with a number of web sites that
depended on that behaviour.
HTML5 does not reference the Content-Type: text/html header as enough to
qualify as meaning HTML5.
HTML5 **requires** its own prolog (i.e. its basic document declaration
**within** the document itself, for the HTML syntax, or its FULL document
declaration for the XML/XHTML syntax).
So Firefox is
That's a valid computation if the extension was limited to use only
2-surrogate encodings for supplementary planes.
If we could use 3-surrogate encodings, you'd need
3*2ˆn surrogates
to encode
2^(3*n)
new codepoints.
With n=10 (like today), this requires a total of 3072 surrogates, and you
Note that the **curent bet** that the existing 17 planes will be sufficient
is valid only if there's no international desire to encode something else
than just what is in the current focus of Unicode.
Say (for example) that the WIPO absolutely wants to encode corporate logos.
Or ISO or the IETF
You might want to look at Wikipedia entry E-mail. There was a formal
timeshare messaging system:
1978 – EMAIL at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New
Jerseyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Medicine_and_Dentistry_of_New_Jersey
[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail#cite_note-37
What has this to do with Unicode???
- John Burger
MITRE
On Nov 27, 2012, at 05:14 , N. Ganesan wrote:
There are interviews in Tamil and English language media about
V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai and his work in high school
and later with respect to electronic mail.
A statement issued by MIT
I've never said that user agents had to 'write the prolog. It's the
reverse: yes authors have to write a prolog (but the prolog is perfect here
so this is not the fault of the author). Why do have to use this prolog,
it's exactly because user agents will have to read it (not write it),
as it is
Also you make a confusion in the sense that HTML5 must be able to parse
HTML4.
This is true, but this does not mean that they will be able to render it
fully. HTML5 is not fully upward compatible with past versions (and the
case of the identification of encodings is an example where it is
On 27 Nov 2012, at 14:31, John D. Burger j...@mitre.org wrote:
What has this to do with Unicode???
u+1F4E7
U+1F455
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
On 27 Nov 2012, at 13:53, Clive Hohberger cp...@case.edu wrote:
BTW, the routine capitalization of 'E' in E-mail came in the 1990's from
William Safire's On Language column in the NY Times newspaper: He made the
analogy with T-shirt.
The T in T-shirt is capitalized because of the shape of
On Tuesday 27 November 2012, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
This is not complicate to parse it in the foreward direction, but for the
backward direction, it means that when you see the final low surrogate, you
still need to rollback to the previous position: it can only be a
Philippe Verdy, Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:39:43 +0100:
I've never said that user agents had to 'write the prolog. It's the
reverse: yes authors have to write a prolog (but the prolog is perfect here
so this is not the fault of the author).
XML has (or more correctly: can have) a prolog. HTML does
Looks OK here, but that is probably FreeType doing its magic as usual.
Regards,
Khaled
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 02:29:45AM +0100, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Also I really don't like the Deseret font:
{font-family: CMU; src: url(CMUSerif-Roman.ttf) format(truetype);}
that you have inserted in your
There isn't an actual problem here which needs a solution, satisfactory, or
otherwise. The persistence of the 17 planes may not be enough meme on this
list is an interesting phenomenon in itself, but has no practical impact on any
of the actual ongoing work on maintenance of the encoding
German scholars have traced it back at least to the early Middle Ages:
Email im frühen Mittelalter
von Günther Haseloff
http://books.google.com/books/about/Email_im_frühen_Mittelalter.html?id=H7RJAQAAIAAJ
Jo(k)e
In modern German, it means enamel
2012/11/27 Joe j...@unicode.org
German scholars have traced it back at least to the early Middle Ages:
Email im frühen Mittelalter
von Günther Haseloff
http://books.google.com/books/about/Email_im_frühen_Mittelalter.html?id=H7RJAQAAIAAJ
A ! I see now the problem: the XHTML file is being served as HTML
instead of XHTML (but this is not invalid for XHTML 1).
But anyway you're also right that the XML prolog found is NOT valid for
HTML5 when the file is served as HTML instead of XHTML. This should
immediately trigger the fact
No. Freetype is not involved here for the ugly rendering (on screen) under
Windows of the unhinted CMU font provided by the page. May be this looks
OK on Mac (if Safari is autohinting the font itself, despite the font is
not autohinted itself ; I'm not sure that Safari on MacOS processes TTF
fonts
Philippe Verdy, Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:07:31 +0100:
A ! I see now the problem: the XHTML file is being served as HTML
instead of XHTML (but this is not invalid for XHTML 1).
Both SGML-based HTML4 and XML-based XHTML 1 operate with syntax rules
that are not - and has never been - compatible
On 11/27/2012 5:39 AM, Masatoshi Kimura wrote:
(2012/11/27 20:27), Philippe Verdy wrote:
Could you please stop spreading an unfounded rumor such as Firefox is
wrong because it ignores the lacking of HTML5 prolog?
Getting Philippe to stop spreading unfounded anything is a near
impossible
2012/11/27 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no
The fact that XHTML 1 permits the XML prolog regardless how the
document is served, is just a shortcoming of the XHTML 1 specification.
No, it was by design. Making HTML an application of XML. Only XML but
with all rules of XML.
To this, my mother would say: Why keep it simple when we can make it
complicated?.
Regards,Martin.
On 2012/11/27 21:01, Philippe Verdy wrote:
That's a valid computation if the extension was limited to use only
2-surrogate encodings for supplementary planes.
If we could use 3-surrogate
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Clive Hohberger cp...@case.edu wrote:
You might want to look at Wikipedia entry E-mail. There was a formal
timeshare messaging system:
1978 – EMAIL at University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey[36]
This is Shiva Ayyadurai's program written in 1978.
Not only does this have nothing to do with Unicode, but who cares?
Grumpily,
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
From: N. Ganesan
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 18:35
To: Clive Hohberger
Cc: Indic Discussion List ; Unicode Mailing List
Subject: Re:
So using the xml:lang=en-Dsrt pseudo-attribute remains a good
suggestion to allow a CSS stylesheet to avoid using referening CMU
font on Windows and MacOS when displaying the Latin text (using
xml:lang=en) and to allow the same stylesheet to specify a much
better Deseret font for Windows (Segoe
Philippe Verdy, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 01:10:45 +0100:
2012/11/27 Leif Halvard Silli
The fact that XHTML 1 permits the XML prolog regardless how the
document is served, is just a shortcoming of the XHTML 1 specification.
No, it was by design. Making HTML an application of XML. Only XML but
with
2012/11/28 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no
For
a new version of the validator, that ask more of those questions,
please try http://validator.w3.org/nu/ - it happens to for the most
part be developed by one of the Firefox developers, btw. And it allows
you to check
detects a violation of the required
extended prolog (sorry, the HTML5 document declaration, which is not a
valid document declaration for XHTML or for HTML4 or before or even for
SGML, due to the unspecified schema after the shema short name), it
should
catch this exception to try
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Clive Hohberger cp...@case.edu wrote:
BTW, the routine capitalization of 'E' in E-mail came in the 1990's from
William Safire's On Language column in the NY Times newspaper: He made
the
analogy with T-shirt
Is this capitalisation of T-shirt mandatory ? (of
Philippe Verdy, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:23:10 +0100:
2012/11/28 Leif Halvard Silli xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no
For
a new version of the validator, that ask more of those questions,
please try http://validator.w3.org/nu/ - it happens to for the most
part be developed by one of the Firefox
Philippe Verdy wrote:
And it will still remain enough place in the remaining planes to
define later a few more surrogates of a new type, if really needed for
a future, upward compatible, standard if it ever comes to reality —
such as having an open registry of corporate logos or glyph designs,
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Is this capitalisation of T-shirt mandatory ? (of course the shape
of the letter recalls the shape of the suit) I've seen frequently
t-shirt (sometimes tee-shirt as well) when the term was
lexicalized, with a clear pronunciation and understanding by itself,
without
Philippe Verdy, Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:50:06 +0100:
detects a violation of the required
extended prolog (sorry, the HTML5 document declaration, which is not a
valid document declaration for XHTML or for HTML4 or before or even for
SGML, due to the unspecified schema after the shema short name),
39 matches
Mail list logo
