On 2018/10/31 03:51, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 at 18:59, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> Marcel Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> This use case is different from the use case that led to submit
>>> the L2/18-206 proposal, cited by Dr Ewell on 29/10/2018 at 20:29:
>>
>> I guess
Hello Ken, others,
On 2018/10/03 06:43, Ken Whistler wrote:
But it seems to me that the problem you are citing can be avoided if you
simply rethink what your "capitalize" means. It really should be
conceived of as first lowercasing the *entire* string, and then
titlecasing the *eligible*
Since the last discussion on Georgian (Mtavruli) on this mailing list, I
have been looking into how to implement it in the Programming language Ruby.
Ruby has four case-conversion operations for its class String:
upcase: convert all characters to upper case
downcase: convert all characters
Ken, Markus,
Many thanks for your ideas, which I noted at
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14839.
Regards, Martin.
On 2018/10/03 06:43, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 10/2/2018 12:45 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
My questions here are:
- Has this been considered when Georgian Mtavruli
On 2019/01/17 12:38, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> ( http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode11.0.0/ch02.pdf )
>
> "Plain text must contain enough information to permit the text to be
> rendered legibly, and nothing more."
>
> The argument is that italic information can be stripped yet
On 2019/01/17 17:51, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-17 6:27 AM, Martin J. Dürst replied:
> > ...
> > Based by these data points, and knowing many of the people involved, my
> > description would be that decisions about what to encode as characters
&g
On 2019/01/15 07:58, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:09 AM Tex via Unicode wrote:
>> ·Plain text still has tremendous utility and rich text is not always
>> an option.
>
> Where? Twitter has the option of doing rich text, as does any closed
> system. In
On 2019/01/15 10:48, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/14/19 4:21 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>> Short of that, I'm extremely leery of "leading" standardization; that
>> is, encoding things that "might" be used.
>>
> It is certainly true that Unicode should not be (and
On 2019/01/11 10:48, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously
> considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?
What is a stylistic variant or not is quite a bit more complicated for
CJK than for scripts such as Latin.
On 2019/01/11 16:13, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Styled Latin text is being simulated with math alphanumerics now, which
> means that data is being interchanged and archived. That's the user
> demand illustrated.
Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's
simulated
On 2019/01/14 01:46, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
>> And what happens when you capitalise a word for emphasis or to begin a
>> sentence? Is it no longer the same word?
>
> Indeed. As has
On 2019/01/13 13:24, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
>
> > This discussion has been very interesting, really. I've heard what I
> > thought were very good points and relevant arguments from both/all
> > sides, and I confess to not being sure which I actually prefer.
Hello James, others,
From the examples below, it looks like a feature request for Twitter
(and/or Facebook). Blaming the problem on Unicode doesn't seem to be
appropriate.
Regards, Martin.
On 2019/01/14 18:06, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Not a twitter user, don't know how popular
Hello James, others,
On 2019/01/14 15:24, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Martin J. Dürst wrote,
>
> > I'd say it should be conservative. As the meaning of that word
> > (similar to others such as progressive and regressive) may be
> > interpreted in vari
On 2018/09/16 21:08, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
An additional level of complexity is induced by ergonomics. so that most
non-Latin layouts may wish to stick
with QWERTY, and even ergonomic layouts in the footprints of August Dvorak
rather than Shai Coleman are
likely to offer
On 2019/02/09 19:58, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 18:08:34 -0800
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>> Under the implicit assumptions bandied about here, the VS approach
>> thus reveals itself as a true rich-text solution (font switching)
>> albeit realized with
On 2019/01/31 07:02, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:33:38 +0100
> Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode wrote:
>
>> Le 30/01/2019 à 14:36, Egmont Koblinger via Unicode a écrit :
>>> - It doesn't do Arabic shaping. In my recommendation I'm arguing
>>> that in this mode,
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
Hello Mark, others,
On 2019/04/16 12:18, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> Yes. But the sentences aren't just symbolic representations of the
> concepts or something. They are frequently direct
> transcriptions—usually by puns—for *English* sentences, so left-to-right
> makes sense. So
Hello Richard, others,
On 2019/10/23 07:32, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 23:27:27 +0200
> Daniel Bünzli via Unicode wrote:
>> Just to make things clear. When you say character in your message,
>> you consistently mean scalar value right ?
>
> Yes.
>
> I find it
I had a look at the page with the frequencies. Many emoji didn't
display, but that's my browser's problem. What was worse was that the
sidebar and the stuff at the bottom was all looking weird. I hope this
can be fixed.
Regards, Martin.
Forwarded Message
Subject: The Most
On 2019/10/04 15:35, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
> Hello Markus,
>
> On 2019/10/04 01:53, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote:
>> Dear Unicoders,
>>
>> Is Manipuri/Meitei customarily written in Bangla/Bengali script or
>> in Meitei script?
>>
>>
Hello Markus,
On 2019/10/04 01:53, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote:
> Dear Unicoders,
>
> Is Manipuri/Meitei customarily written in Bangla/Bengali script or
> in Meitei script?
>
> I am looking at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitei_language#Writing_systems which seems
> to describe writing
Martin.
> Mark
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:50 PM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode <
> unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
>
>> I had a look at the page with the frequencies. Many emoji didn't
>> display, but that's my browser's problem. What was worse was that the
>> sid
Happy New Year to everybody on this list!
Except for the Internationalization and Unicode Conference (see
https://www.unicodeconference.org/; submission deadline March 6, 2020),
this list very rarely sees calls for papers, but this one should
definitely be of interest at least to a subset of
On 20/03/2020 23:41, Adam Borowski via Unicode wrote:
> Also, UTF-8 can carry more than Unicode -- for example, U+D800..U+DFFF or
> U+11000..U+7FFF (or possibly even up to 2³⁶ or 2⁴²), which has its uses
> but is not well-formed Unicode.
This would definitely no longer be UTF-8! Martin.
On 23/03/2020 03:56, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:35 PM Doug Ewell via Unicode
> wrote:
>
>> I thought the whole premise of GB18030 was that it was Unicode mapped into
>> a GB2312 framework. What characters exist in GB18030 that don't exist in
>> Unicode, and
201 - 228 of 228 matches
Mail list logo
