At 12:43 PM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
It sounds like what you are saying, in concrete terms, is that Font #6
at the bottom of:
http://www.macchiato.com/utc/variation_selection/variation_selection_f
ollowup.htm
is conformant. If that is so, then we would have to have an
At 12:33 AM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
I find it fairly pointless to say that a font supports the variation
selection sequence U+03B8, U+FE00 if it does not provide a visual
distinction from U+03B8; and such a distinction should be based on the
entry description. Thus, of the
://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mark Davis (jtcsv) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 01:36
Subject: Re: Variation Selection (Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files updated)
Now this message
(Was Re: Unicode 3.2: BETA files
updated)
At 12:33 AM 1/27/02 -0800, Mark Davis \(jtcsv\) wrote:
I find it fairly pointless to say that a font supports the
variation
selection sequence U+03B8, U+FE00 if it does not provide a
visual
distinction from U+03B8; and such a distinction should be based
At 20:55 -0800 2002-01-25, John Hudson wrote:
At 13:48 1/25/2002, Julie Allen wrote:
We're estimating that 4.0 will be roughly 1500 pages, which the
publisher says is not a problem for one volume. Now whether you can
carry it with one hand is a different question. :-)
Please try to ensure a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more
of the missing glyphs provided.
I can't see any difference between plain U+2278 (either in the draft
code chart or StandardizedVariants.html) and U+2278 with VS1.
Is
At 06:29 AM 1/24/02 +, David Hopwood wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more
of the missing glyphs provided.
I can't see any difference between plain U+2278 (either in the draft
code chart or StandardizedVariants.html) and U+2278
At 06:29 AM 1/24/02 +, David Hopwood wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more
of the missing glyphs provided.
Can anyone send me the URL for this chart? I can't seem to find it.
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
While VARIATION SELECTOR is the formal name of the character (and therefore
fixed), referring to the selected thing as a 'variation' sounds really
odd, that's why the more common term 'variant' is used all over the place.
Perhaps we ought to make them formally
John Hudson asked,
As Unicode continues to grow, I wonder if we can expect another book--
or
multiple volumes -- at some stage, or if the standard will become a
purely
electronic document? Has any decision been taken about this?
Speaking in my official capacity as editor, the answer is yes,
Julie said:
As to the form and timing of 5.0,
that would be pure speculation at this point. Someone else on the
committee might be willing to speculate, but I won't!
Ummm...
Unicode 5.0 will be published on December 22, 2007,
in DVD3 holographic format, complete with a remastered
Unicode
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Julie Allen wrote:
Speaking in my official capacity as editor, the answer is yes, you can
expect another book. The editorial committee is already hard at work on
4.0, which we expect to publish as one volume.
So are you worried about 4.0 being 2,000
Ken let the cat out of the bag:
Unicode 5.0 will be published on December 22, 2007...
complete with a remastered Unicode hymn...
It's true. We've already booked an Abbey Road studio for five days in
March 2007, and we've signed 75 of the hottest young voices in the world to
be in the
At 11:31 AM 1/25/02 -0800, Julie Allen wrote:
John Hudson asked,
As Unicode continues to grow, I wonder if we can expect another book--
or
multiple volumes -- at some stage, or if the standard will become a
purely
electronic document? Has any decision been taken about this?
There are
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:31:19AM -0800, Julie Allen wrote:
Speaking in my official capacity as editor, the answer is yes, you
can
expect another book. The editorial committee is already hard at work
on
4.0, which we expect to publish as one volume.
So are you worried about 4.0 being
Julie We're estimating that 4.0 will be roughly 1500 pages, which the
Julie publisher says is not a problem for one volume. Now whether you can
Julie carry it with one hand is a different question. :-)
We Unicode accolytes have a rule that requires using both hands when carrying
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Asmus Freytag wrote:
At 06:29 AM 1/24/02 +, David Hopwood wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And StandardizedVariants.html has been updated again, with more
of the missing glyphs provided.
I can't see any difference between plain U+2278 (either in
At 13:48 1/25/2002, Julie Allen wrote:
We're estimating that 4.0 will be roughly 1500 pages, which the
publisher says is not a problem for one volume. Now whether you can
carry it with one hand is a different question. :-)
Please try to ensure a sturdy binding. The binding of 3.0 is a little
At 10:58 PM 1/24/02 +, David Hopwood wrote:
One possibility is to make VS1 specify what is now the reference glyph,
and VS2 specify the alternate glyph. Unmarked would mean either.
Boy, great minds do think alike. I proposed that in a paper to the UTC
last year. ;-)
You realize that this
As Unicode continues to grow, I wonder if we can expect another book-- or
multiple volumes -- at some stage, or if the standard will become a purely
electronic document? Has any decision been taken about this?
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL
20 matches
Mail list logo
