On 17/01/2019 12:21, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
But the French "espace fine insécable" was requested long long before Mongolian
was discussed for encodinc in the UCS. The problem is that the initial rush for French
was made in a period where Unicode and ISO were
On 17/01/2019 14:36, I wrote:
[…]
The only thing that searches have brought up
It was actually the best thing. Here’s an even more surprising hit:
B. In the rules, allow these characters to bridge both
alphabetic and numeric words, with:
* Replace MidLetter
On 17/01/2019 12:21, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
But the French "espace fine insécable" was requested long long before Mongolian
was discussed for encodinc in the UCS.
Then we should be able to read its encoding proposal in the UTC document
registry, but Google Search
Le jeu. 17 janv. 2019 à 05:01, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> a écrit :
> On 16/01/2019 21:53, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:25:06 +0100
> > Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> >
> >> If your fonts behave incorrectly on your system
Courier New was lacking NNBSP on Windows 7. It is including it on
Windows 10. The tests I referred to were made 2 years ago. I
confess that I was so disappointed to see Courier New unsupporting
NNBSP a decade after encoding, while many relevant people in the
industry were surely aware of its role
On 16/01/2019 21:53, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:25:06 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
If your fonts behave incorrectly on your system because it does not
map any glyph for NNBSP, don't blame the font or Unicode about this
problem, blame the renderer
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 13:25:06 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> If your fonts behave incorrectly on your system because it does not
> map any glyph for NNBSP, don't blame the font or Unicode about this
> problem, blame the renderer (or the application or OS using it, may
> be they are
Julian Bradfield wrote,
> Oh, and what about dropped initials? They have been used in both
> manuscripts and typography for many centuries - surely we must encode
> them?
Naa-aah, we just hack the full width presentation forms for that.
Ｄrop Ｃaps in Ｐlain Ｔext
(Whether they actually drop
Martin J. Dürst wrote:
So rich text technology is already way ahead when it comes to styled
text. Do we want to encode background-color variant selectors in
Unicode? If yes, how many?
Yes.
You would only need one.
Background colour was a feature of teletext in the United Kingdom from
Note that even if this NNBSP character is not mapped in a font, it should
be rendered correctly with all modern renderers (the mapping is necessary
only when a font design wants to tune its metrics, because its width varies
between 1/8 and 1/6 em (the narrow space is a bit narrower in traditional
On 15/01/2019 10:24, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
Le lun. 14 janv. 2019 à 20:25, Marcel Schneider via Unicode mailto:unicode@unicode.org>> a écrit :
On 14/01/2019 06:08, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Marcel Schneider wrote,
>
>> There is a crazy typeface out there,
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
> On 15 Jan 2019, at 02:18, Richard Wordingham via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:02:05 -0800
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
>> On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
>> Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> On 14
Le lun. 14 janv. 2019 à 20:25, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> a écrit :
> On 14/01/2019 06:08, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > Marcel Schneider wrote,
> >
> >> There is a crazy typeface out there, misleadingly called 'Courier
> >> New', as if the foundry didn’t
On 15/01/2019 03:02, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/2019 5:41 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/19 5:08 AM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
This thread has gone on for a bit and I question if there is any more light
that can be shed.
BTW, I admit to liking Asmus definition
On 15/01/2019 01:17, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:08 PM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Asmus,
I agree 100%. Asking where is the harm was an actual question intended to
surface problems. It wasn’t rhetoric for saying there is no harm.
The harm comes when this is imported into
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
wrote:
> *If* the VS is ignored by searches, as apparently it should be and some
> have reported that it is, then VS-type solutions would NOT be a problem
> when it comes to searches
Who is using VS-type solutions? I could not enter
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
(sorry for multiple responses...)
On 1/13/19 10:00 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
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
On 1/13/19 10:00 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
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
On 1/14/2019 5:41 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/19 5:08 AM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
This thread has gone on for a bit and
I question if there is any more light
In some of this discussion, I'm not sure what is being proposed or
forbidden here... I don't know that anyone is advocating removing the
"don't use these for words!" warning sticker on the mathematical
italics. The closest-to-sensible suggestions I've heard are things like
a VS to italicize a
On 1/14/19 4:21 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:08 AM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Perhaps the question should be put to twitter, messaging apps,
text-to-voice vendors, and others whether it will be useful or not.
If the discussion continues I would like to see more of a
On 1/14/19 5:08 AM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
This thread has gone on for a bit and I question if there is any more
light that can be shed.
BTW, I admit to liking Asmus definition for functions that span text
being a definition or criteria for rich text.
Me too. There are probably some
On 1/14/19 4:45 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
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.
I think what people here are doing is not blaming the problem on
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:02:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
> Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg wrote,
>
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:24:46 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Unicode doesn't enforce any spelling or punctuation rules. Unicode
> doesn't tell human beings how to pronounce strings of text or how to
> interpret them.
These are not statements that are both honest and true. Unicode lays
From:
Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On
Behalf Of Asmus Freytag via Unicode
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:21 PM
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: A last missing lin
On 1/14/2019 2:43 PM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Hans Åberg wrote,
> How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just
display with a dotted
On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard
Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
Hans Åberg wrote,
How
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hans Åberg wrote,
> >
> > > How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
> >
> > Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg wrote,
>
> > How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
>
> Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just display with a
> dotted circle but neglected to try it out first. It actually
On 1/14/2019 2:58 PM, David Starner via
Unicode wrote:
Source code is an example of plain text, and yet adding italics into
comments would require but a trivial change to editors. If the user
audience cared, it would have been done. In fact, I suspect there
exist
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:09 AM Tex via Unicode wrote:
> The arguments against italics seem to be:
>
> ·Unicode is plain text. Italics is rich text.
>
> ·We haven't had it until now, so we don't need it.
>
> ·There are many rich text solutions, such as html.
>
> ·
Hans Åberg wrote,
> How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just display
with a dotted circle but neglected to try it out first. It actually
renders perfectly here. /That's/ good to know. (smile)
On 14/01/2019 08:26, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-01-13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
[…]
These statements make me fear that the font you are using might unsupport
the NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE U+202F > <. If you see a question mark between
It displays as a space. As one
On 1/14/2019 2:08 AM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
Perhaps the question should be put to
twitter, messaging apps, text-to-voice vendors, and others
whether it will be useful or not.
If the discussion continues I would like
to see more of a
On 14/01/2019 04:00, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
[…]
[…] As Asmus has shown, one of the best ways to understand what
Unicode does with respect to text variants is that style works on
spans of characters (words,...), and is rich text, but thinks that
work on single characters are handled
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 22:43, Khaled Hosny via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> LaTeX with the
> “unicode-math” package will translate ASCII + font switches to the
> respective Unicode math alphanumeric characters. Word will do the same.
> Even browsers rendering MathML will do the same (though most likely
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 06:08, 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.)
How
Hello Martin, others...
> Blaming the problem on Unicode doesn't seem to be appropriate.
I don't consider that there's any problem with plain text users
exchanging plain text. I give Unicode /credit/ for being the foundation
of that ability. Anyone imagining that I'm casting blame is
This thread has gone on for a bit and I question if there is any more light
that can be shed.
BTW, I admit to liking Asmus definition for functions that span text being a
definition or criteria for rich text.
I also liked James examples of the twitter use case.
The arguments against
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 various way, here's what I mean by
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
Not a twitter user, don't know how popular the practice is, but here's a
couple of links concerned with how to use bold or italics in Twitter
plain text messages.
https://www.simplehelp.net/2018/03/13/how-to-use-bold-and-italicized-text-on-twitter/
https://mothereff.in/twitalics
Both pages
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:47:45 + (GMT)
Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> 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
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:
>
>
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:
혗혈혙혛 혖혍 헔햳햮헭.향햱햠햬햤햶햮햱햪 © ퟮퟬퟭퟯ 햠햫햤햷 햦햱햠햸
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
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
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
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 various way, here's what I mean by that.
>
> It should not take up and extend every little fad at the blink of an
> eye. It
"Looking back at the history of computing, a large chunk of the
underlying technology has hit stability. ARM chips, x86 chips, Unix,
and Windows have all been around since 1985 or before, roughly 35
years ago and 35 years since the first programmed computer. They
aren't wildly changing."
I
> But even most adults won't know the rules for what to italicize that
> have been brought up in this thread. Even if they have read books that
> use italic and bold in ways that have been brought up in this thread,
> most readers won't be able to tell you what the rules are. That's left
> to
Marcel Schneider wrote,
> There is a crazy typeface out there, misleadingly called 'Courier New',
> as if the foundry didn’t anticipate that at some point it would be better
> called "Courier Obsolete". ...
퐴푟푡 푛표푢푣푒푎푢 seems a bit 푝푎푠푠é nowadays, as well.
(Had to use mark-up for that “span”
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:03 PM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode
wrote:
> No, the casing idea isn't actually a dumb one. As Asmus has shown, one
> of the best ways to understand what Unicode does with respect to text
> variants is that style works on spans of characters (words,...), and is
> rich
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 PM James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
> It's subjective, really. It depends on how one views plain-text and
> one's expectations for its future. Should plain-text be progressive,
> regressive, or stagnant? Because those are really the only choices.
> And opinions
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
Julian Bradfield replied,
>> 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.
यदि आप किसी
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 04:52:25PM +, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> > This is an italicized word:
> > 푘푎푘푖푠푡표푐푟푎푐푦
> > ... where the "geek" hacker used Latin italics letters from the math
> > alphanumeric range as though they were Latin
On 13/01/2019 17:52, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
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
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
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 styling the
>> word; I am not
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.
>
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.
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.
It's subjective, really. It depends on how one views
On 2019-01-12 4:26 PM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote:
I have now made, tested and published a font, VS14 Maquette, that uses
VS14 to indicate italic.
https://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10=7831=37561#p37561
The italics don't happen in Notepad, but VS14 Maquette works spendidly
Just to add some more fuel for this fire, I note also the highly popular
(in some places) technique of using Unicode letters that may have
nothing whatsoever to do with the symbol or letter you mean to
represent, apart from coincidental resemblance and looking "cool"
enough. This happens a
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> ...What this teaches you is that italicizing (or boldfacing)
> text is fundamentally related to picking out parts of your
> text in a different font.
Typically from the same typeface, though.
> So those screen readers got it right, except that they could
> have used
On 12/01/2019 00:17, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
[…]
The fact that the math alphanumerics are incomplete may have been
part of what prompted Marcel Schneider to start this thread.
No, really not at all. I didn’t even dream of having italics in Unicode
working out of the box. That would
On 1/12/2019 5:22 AM, 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)
-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10=7831=37561#p37561
William Overington
Saturday 12 January 2019
-- Original Message --
From: "James Kass via Unicode"
To: unicode@unicode.org
Sent: Friday, 2019 Jan 11 At 01:48
Subject: Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation
Richard
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 14:21:19 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> FWIW, the math formula:
> a + b # 푏 + 푎
> ... becomes invalid if normalized NFKD/NFKC. (Or if copy/pasted from
> an HTML page using marked-up ASCII into a plain-text editor.)
(a) Italic versus plain is not significant in the
Reading & writing & 'rithmatick...
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.
This is an italicized word:
푘푎푘푖푠푡표푐푟푎푐푦
... where the "geek" hacker used Latin italics letters
Julian Bradford wrote,
* Bradfield, sorry.
Julian Bradford wrote,
"It does not work with much existing technology. Interspersing extra
codepoints into what is otherwise plain text breaks all the existing
software that has not been, and never will be updated to deal with
arbitrarily complex algorithms required to do Unicode searching.
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
Tex Texin wrote,
> ... However, the fact that there is a rich text solution for italics
> isn't helpful to plain text users.
Truer words were never spoken.
> In the '90s it made sense to resist styling plain text. In the 2020's,
> with more than 100k characters, numerous pictures and
Martin J. Dürst wrote,
> Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's
> simulated by something else.
By an earlier definition, in-line pictures weren't plain text, until
people started exchanging them as though they were. In this case,
people are exchanging plain text
On 11.01.2019 11:43, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Martin,
James is making the case there is demand or a user need and that the
proof is that users are using inconsistent tactics to simulate a
solution to their problem.
The use of math characters is mostly to get around limitations of
Twitter
Emoji were being encoded as characters, as codepoints in private use
areas. That inherently called for a Unicode response. Bidirectional
support is a headache; the amount of confusion and outright exploits
from them is way higher then we like.The HTML support probably doesn't
help that. However,
Martin,
James is making the case there is demand or a user need and that the proof is
that users are using inconsistent tactics to simulate a solution to their
problem.
The response that:
"Almost by definition, styled text isn't plain text, even if it's simulated by
something else."
is a bit
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 2019/01/11 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.
Richard Wordingham responded,
>> ... simply using an existing variation
>> selector character to do the job.
>
> Actually, this might be a superior option.
For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and
open-endedness to keep it simple. Start with VS14 and work
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:43:46 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> The second step would be to persuade Unicode to encode a new
> character rather than simply using an existing variation selector
> character to do the job.
Actually, this might be a superior option.
Richard.
Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
> A perhaps more affirmative step, not necessarily first
> but maybe, would be to write up a proposal and submit
> it through channels so the "powers that be" can
> respond officially.
Indeed. And a preliminary step might be to float the concept on the
public list
On 1/10/19 6:43 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
The first step would be to persuade the "powers that be" that italics
are needed. That seems presently unlikely. There's an entrenched
mindset which seems to derive from the fact that pre-existing
character sets were based on mechanical
Yesterday I wrote as follows.
I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a
COMBINING ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the
character that it immediately follows. So, for example, to make the
word apricot become displayed in italics one would use seven
Oops. Sorry for the inadvertent copy/paste duplication.
On 2019-01-10 11:27 PM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote:
Yesterday I wrote as follows.
I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a
COMBINING ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the
character that it immediately follows. So, for example, to make the
word
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:06:26AM +, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> The unintended usage of math alphanumerics in the real world is fairly
> widespread, at least in screen names.
On this topic, I was just pointed to
https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/1083073242330361856
On 1/9/2019 4:41 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:
On 1/9/19 2:30 AM, Asmus Freytag via
Unicode wrote:
English use of italics on isolated words
to disambiguate the reading of some sentences is a
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 02:33:02PM -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> James Kass wrote:
> > (I still get a kick out of this:)
> > http://www.ewellic.org/mathtext.html
> Andrew West’s online “Unicode Text Styler” includes non-math
> characters (like circled and fullwidth) as well, and is
On 1/9/19 4:25 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
Honestly, I could argue that case should not be encoded. It would
simplify so much processing of Latin script text, and most of the time
case-sensitive operations are just wrong. Case is clearly a headache
that has to be dealt with in
On 1/9/19 12:33 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
Is there any way to preserve The Art of Computer Programming except as
a PDF or its TeX sources? Grabbing a different book near me, I don't
see any way to preserve them except as full-color paged reproductions.
Looking at one data format,
On 1/9/19 2:30 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
English use of italics on isolated words to disambiguate the reading
of some sentences is a convention. Everybody who does it, does it the
same way. Not supported in plain text.
German books from the Fraktur age used Antiqua for Latin and
I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a COMBINING
ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the character that it
immediately follows. So, for example, to make the word apricot become
displayed in italics one would use seven COMBINING ITALICIZER
characters, one
On 1/9/2019 1:37 AM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
James Kass wrote:
If a text is published in all italics, that’s style/font
choice. If a text is published using italics and roman
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
