William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following
page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
This is a not too lengthy web page with just Basic Latin
letters. It will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need to add
William Overington wrote on 05/30/2003 03:20:51 AM:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
This is a not too lengthy web page with just Basic Latin letters. It
will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need
Philippe Verdy wrote on 05/30/2003 05:21:58 AM:
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable
Not exactly: they are interoperable by prior agreement between parties.
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
Philippe,
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as
it requires proprietary fonts to display them.
People use special fonts all the time. They are more efficient to
From: Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as
it requires proprietary fonts to display them.
People use special fonts all the
Peter_Constable at sil dot org wrote:
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
requires proprietary fonts to display them.
I think that is overly restrictive. (And if the requirements for the
savvy logo are changed
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
requires proprietary fonts to display them.
I think that is overly restrictive. (And if the requirements for the
savvy logo are changed to rule out use of PUA, then I could
[OOOPS! This works better if I set the proper MIME encoding... Sorry]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
This contrasts a lot with the Unicode codepoints assigned to
abstract characters, that are processable out of any
contextual stylesheet, font or markup system, where its only
semantic is in that
Philippe Verdy wrote:
This contrasts a lot with the Unicode codepoints assigned to
abstract characters, that are processable out of any
contextual stylesheet, font or markup system, where its only
semantic is in that case private use with no linguistic
semantic and no abstract character
Philippe Verdy wrote:
May be the PUA allocated spaces could be divided in normative
categories, for example by assigning LTR or RTL base letters in some
areas, diacritics in another large area splitted in 255 subspaces for
combining characters, and symbols or ideographs in another large
area.
Um,
William Overington wrote:
2.. What is the situation if a page is encoded entirely properly as far as,
say, using UTF-8 goes, yet also uses Private Use Area characters?
UTF-8 includes the PUA. It specifies nothing, however, about its contents.
--
Curtis Clark
Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that if you have a Klingon web site that uses UTF-8
and the PUA with
your own font is very Unicode savvy.
Carl
It's certainly a lot more savvy than using Latin-1 characters to
encode Klingon.
- Chris
William Overington wrote:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
It will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need to add to the page to get
it to validate.
RTFM:
Chris,
I think that if you have a Klingon web site that uses UTF-8
and the PUA with
your own font is very Unicode savvy.
Carl
It's certainly a lot more savvy than using Latin-1 characters to
encode Klingon.
If nothing else we need to discourage people from using the Latin-1 code
page
Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nothing else we need to discourage people from using the
Latin-1 code
page and a special font to create a code page hack.
Yes, I think that sort of thing should be *explicitly forbidden*
on pages where the Unicode Savvy logo is present (unless they
At 09:20 +0100 2003-05-30, William Overington wrote:
I wonder if Sarasvati herself, not one or more of the
non-Sarasvati-but-act-like-they-are-without-a-mandate people, could please
make a formal ruling on whether it is permitted to post a list of Private
Use Area encodings to the list and thus
- Original Message -
From: William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Magda Danish (Unicode) [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Announcement: New Unicode Savvy Logo
Now that Mark Davis has made a statement
I have to say, I think these gifs are pretty icky. No offense intended.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
What logo should be used in a software which support Unicode Codes?
MJ
Quoting Magda Danish (Unicode) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dear Unicoders,
Very often the Unicode Consortium has received requests from webmasters
who wished to indicate with a logo or banner that their site supports or
uses
Hi List,
http://www.unicode.org/consortium/unisavvy.html.
This is nice.
Just one question: I'd like to have it in another language+script. How about
it? Would you accept contributions in the same style, with Unicode Savvy
written in another language+script?
Alok
attachment: winmail.dat
Title: Announcement: New Unicode Savvy Logo
Dear Unicoders,
Very often the Unicode Consortium has received requests from webmasters who wished to indicate with a logo or banner that their site supports or uses Unicode. For such purposes we have developed two logos that can be freely
21 matches
Mail list logo
