Re: Is the binaryness/textness of a data format a property?

On 2020-03-21, Eli Zaretskii via Unicode wrote: >> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:13:40 -0600 >> From: Doug Ewell via Unicode >> >> Adam Borowski 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),

Re: On the lack of a SQUARE TB glyph

On 2019-09-27, David Starner via Unicode wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 8:57 PM Fred Brennan via Unicode > wrote: [snip] >> There is no sequence of glyphs that could be logically mapped, unless you're >> telling me to request that the sequence T B be recommended for general >> interchange as

acute-macron hybrid?

The celebrated Bosworth-Toller dictionary of Anglo-Saxon uses a curious diacritic to mark long vowels. It may be described as a long shallow acute with a small down-tick at the right. It contrasts with an acute (quite steep in this typeface) used to mark accented short vowels. Both can be seen in

mildly OT from bidi - curious email

The current bidi discussion prompts me to post a curiosity I received today. I ordered something from a (UK) company, and the payment receipt came via Stripe. So far, so common. The curious thing is that the (entirely ASCII) company name was enclosed in a left-to-right direction, thus: Subject:

Re: Ancient Greek apostrophe marking elision

On 2019-01-27, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > On 27 Jan 2019, at 05:21, Richard Wordingham > wrote: >> The closing single inverted comma has a different origin to the apostrophe. > No, it doesn’t, but you are welcome to try to prove your assertion. As far as I can tell from the easily

Re: Encoding italic

On 2019-01-21, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Consider superscript/subscript digits as a similar styling issue. The > Wikipedia page for Romanization of Chinese includes information about > the Wade-Giles system’s tone marks, which are superscripted digits. > >

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-15, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > This is not for Mongolian and French wanted this space since long and it > has a use even in English since centuries for fine typography. > So no, NNBSP is definitely NOT "exotic whitespace". It's just that it was > forgotten in the early stages

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-14, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Julian Bradfield wrote, > > I have never seen a Unicode math alphabet character in email > > outside this list. > > It's being done though.  Check this message from 2013 which includes the > following, copy/pasted from the web page into Notepad: > >

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-13, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > यदि आप किसी रोटरी फोन से कॉल कर रहे हैं, तो कृपया स्टार (*) दबाएं। > What happens with Devanagari text?  Should the user community refrain > from interchanging data because 1980s era software isn't Unicode aware? Devanagari is an established

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-14, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > 퐴푟푡 푛표푢푣푒푎푢 seems a bit 푝푎푠푠é nowadays, as well. > > (Had to use mark-up for that “span” of a single letter in order to > indicate the proper letter form.  But the plain-text display looks crazy > with that HTML jive in it.) Indeed. But _Art

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > As far as the information goes that was running until now on this List, > Mathematicians are both using TeX and liking the Unicode math alphabets. As Khaled has said, if they use them, it's because some software designer has decided to use

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > This is a math formula: > a + b = b + a > ... where the estimable "mathematician" used Latin letters from ASCII as > though they were math alphanumerics variables. Yup, and it's immediately understandable by anyone reading on any computer that

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT) > Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: > >> It's also fundamentally misguided. When I _italicize_ a word, I am >> writing a word composed of (plain old) letters, and then styl

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Sounds like you didn't try it.  VS characters are default ignorable. By software that has a full understanding of Unicode. There is a very large world out there of software that was written before Unicode was dreamed of, let alone popular. >

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On 2019-01-11, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Exactly.  William Overington has already posted a proof-of-concept here: > https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10=7831 > ... using a P.U.A. character /in lieu/ of a combining formatting or VS > character.  The concept is straightforward and

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 2018-11-02, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and spell > things the way they are written.  The abbreviation in question as > written consists of three recognizable symbols.  An "M", a superscript > "r", and an equal sign (= two

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 2018-10-31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > Preformatted Unicode superscript small letters are meeting the French > superscript  > requirement, that is found in: > http://www.academie-francaise.fr/abreviations-des-adjectifs-numeraux > (in French). This brief article focuses on the

Re: second attempt (was: A sign/abbreviation for "magister")

On 2018-10-31, Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode wrote: > On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 12:20 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: [ as did I in private mail ] >> The abbreviation in the postcard, rendered in >> plain text, is "Mr". > > The relevant fragment of the postcard in a loose

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 2018-10-30, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > Dr Bradfield just added on 30/10/2018 at 14:21 something that I didn’t > know when replying to Dr Ewell on 29/10/2018 at 21:27: >> The English abbreviation Mr was also frequently superscripted in the >> 15th-17th centuries, and that didn't

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 2018-10-30, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > (Still responding to Ken Whistler's post) > Do you know the difference between H₂SO₄ and H2SO4?  One of them is a > chemical formula, the other one is a license plate number. T̲h̲a̲t̲ is > not a stylistic difference /in my book/.  (Emphasis

Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)

On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to > shoehorn Overington's pet > project, "language-independent sentences/words," which are still > generally deemed out of scope for Unicode. I find it increasingly hard

Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process

On 2018-08-11, Charlotte Buff via Unicode wrote: > There is no semantic difference between a softball and a baseball. They are > literally the same object, just in slightly different sizes. There isn’t a > semantic difference between a squirrel and a chipmunk either (mainly > because they don’t

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2018-01-26, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > Some systems (or admins) have been totally defeated by even the ASCII > version of ʹO’Sullivanʹ. That bodes ill for Kazakhs. The head (about to be ex-head) of my university is Sir Timothy O'Shea. On the student record

Re: Counting Devanagari Aksharas

On 2017-04-22, Eli Zaretskii via Unicode wrote: >> From: Richard Wordingham via Unicode [...] >> I've encountered the problem that, while at least I can search for >> text smaller than a cluster, there's no indication in the window of >> where in the

Re: Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation

On 2017-04-12, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > 2017-04-12 8:35 GMT+02:00 Martin J. Dürst : >> On Go boards, the grid cells are definitely rectangular, not square. The >> reason for this is that boards are usually looked at at an angle, and >>