Philippe Verdy scripsit:
In fact no; both Mongolian (or Manchu, which is unified with it in
Unicode) and Chinese are written TTB.
Then, why did you say that:
What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression is favored,
given the paucity of evidence. Michael favors lr
Michael Everson wrote:
Come on, people. Read the standard, please. It's on page 338.
Michael is absolutely right to rebuke me for not reading the Standard. Of course
I have read the Ogham block intro before, and no doubt that is where I got the
notion of rendering Ogham BTT from, but I had
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The difficulty arises when Ogham is mixed with vertical Han or with
Mongolian, since once the basic directionality becomes vertical, the
tendency to read the Ogham BTT will become automatic. This is analogous
to the problem that fantasai has pointed out with
Andrew C. West scripsit:
The only thing that is certain is that Ogham must be rendered BTT in
vertical contexts. For Ogham text in isolation this is fairly easy to
accomplish by simple rotation, and one could expect writing-mode
: bt-rl or writing-mode : bt-lr to accomplish this in a CSS
Looking at
http://www.unicode.org/review/
33
UTF Conversion
Code Update
2004.06.08
The C
language source code example for UTF conversions (ConverUTF.c) has been
updated to version 1.2 and is being released for public review and
comment. This update
On 2004.05.19, 06:23, Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those who like ISO 15924 script codes and LOVE the Unicode
Private Use Area -- you know who you are -- check out my list of
proposed ISO 15924 private-use codes for the ConScript Unicode
Registry:
The Registrar wishes to thank everyone who has taken an interest in
the ISO 15924 data pages, and regrets the imperfections which are
contained there. I am not sure how we will manage the generation of
the pages, but it is clear that the base should be the plain-text
document.
I have made
Elaine asked:
Why did Debbie suggest June 7 as a the latest date for
responses?
Probably because that is the deadline for documents to be submitted for
consideration at the upcoming UTC meeting. The issue will be discussed
there, so anyone who wants to get their input into that meeting
Philippe Verdy recently said:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression is favored, given the
paucity of evidence. Michael favors lr progression. There is no question
that the text is read BTT.
This creates an interesting problem: Put in the same
At 13:54 -0700 2004-05-19, E. Keown wrote:
I include below the response of Prof. Stephen A. Kaufman, one of the
world's most famous Aramaists, to the Everson Phoenician proposal:
I had seen his contribution already.
Anyone who thinks there has to be a separate
encoding for Phoenician either
Golly gee, all this Phoenecianan talk just makes me wanna sing dance!
Yee-Haw!
Oh Lord let me flog yet another dead horse
I ain't got a life so I love it of course
Just hand me a whip and I will be so glad
So lord let me flog yet another dead horse!
Yer ol' pal,
Youtie
Title: RE: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?
Anyone who thinks there has to be a separate
encoding for Phoenician either does not understand
Unicode or (and probably and) does not understand
what a glyph is.
Was this meant to be a joke?
/|/|ike
I would respecfully suggest that Dr. Stephen A. Kaufman will need to come up
with a more convincing or (and probably and) professional argument than this
one if he wants it to be taken seriously by people who have a very good
understanding of both Unicode and glyphs, and who further have a serious
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Hi,
I include below the response of
Prof. Stephen A. Kaufman, one of the world's most
famous Aramaists, to the Everson Phoenician proposal:
Dr. Stephen A. Kaufman wrote (on the ANE list
recently):
Anyone who thinks there has to be a separate
encoding for
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?
Yer ol' pal,
Youtie
The real question here is what took you so long?
/|/|ike
I see some differences
- For Georgian, your new file contains only:
Georgian (Mkhedruli);Geor;240;géorgien (mkhédrouli);Georgian;2004-05-18
But the previous version also contained in one of the online tables:
Georgian (Asomtavruli);Geoa;242;géorgien (assomtavrouli);Georgian;2004-01-05
-
Michael Everson wrote:
There are already encodings
suitable for all varieties of Northwest Semitic
scripts. One can legitimately argue, as some have,
that there are still some problems with the Hebrew
and Syriac encodings, but not that we need anything
more for the other NW Semitic
From: Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
It should be:
Legal UTF-8 sequences are:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Codepoints---
00-7F
- 007F
C2-DF
80-BF
0080- 07FF
E0
A0-BF
80-BF
0800- 0FFF
E1-EC 80-BF
80-BF
1000- CFFF
ED
80-9F
80-BF
D000- D7FF
EE-EF 80-BF
80-BF
E000-
I note also that the list of change (the HTML file in your archive) does not
include the change of orthograph in English names for consonnants with dots
below (such as malalayam). As this ISO-15924 standard should make the English
and French names unambiguous, their orthograph is important.
-
At 01:08 +0200 2004-05-20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I see some differences
- For Georgian, your new file contains only:
Georgian (Mkhedruli);Geor;240;géorgien (mkhédrouli);Georgian;2004-05-18
But the previous version also contained in one of the online tables:
Georgian
At 01:26 +0200 2004-05-20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I note also that the list of change (the HTML file in your archive) does not
include the change of orthograph in English names for consonnants with dots
below (such as malalayam). As this ISO-15924 standard should make the English
and French names
It's not an actual attested English word, but the term metascript
comes reasonably close to a concept I would like to express
in a proposal I am preparing. A metascript as I am defining it,
is a script such as Latin, Cyrillic or Arabic, that has been extended
from a common core in a wide variety
Title: RE: [BULK] - Re: problems in Public Review 33 UTF Conversion Code Update
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:21 PM
However I feel it's not legal (or really not recommanded) to encode non-
character
On May 19, 2004, at 5:07 PM, John Hudson wrote:
Michael, can you briefly outline the points regarding this
'requirement'? The only one that has been repeatedly referred to in
this too-long discussion is the Tetragrammaton usage; I'm not sure
whether that constitutes a requirement for plain-text
/|/|ike (or |\|\ike) responded to Philippe:
However I feel it's not legal (or really not recommanded) to encode non-
character codepoints xFFFE-x where x is any plane number. So the rules
need to be a bit more detailed to exclude them.
Why do we need special rules to not encode
From: Philippe Verdy
Are these permanently assigned non-characters
encodable in any UTF or in CESU-8?
I would say they are. While they are not available
for transmission of data, they are perfectly legal
tor internal use. Indeed, such internal use is
the raison d'etre of the block of non
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Where is this line?:
Syloti Nagri;Sylo;316;sylotî nâgrî;;2004-09-01
A new script? Oh, it's in the old file and not in
the new one? It, Coptic, and Phags-pa need to be
in the list (they are all under ballot).
It was in the previous list (see the
At 03:28 +0200 2004-05-20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
It was in the previous list (see the online HTML table 2).
What does that refer to?
Who decides for the addition of scripts in ISO-15924?
The ISO 15924 RA-JAC.
I thought there was a separate technical commity
and that you were just the bookkeeper
[Original Message]
From: John Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 19, 2004, at 5:07 PM, John Hudson wrote:
Michael, can you briefly outline the points regarding this
'requirement'? The only one that has been repeatedly referred to in
this too-long discussion is the Tetragrammaton
Ernest Cline wrote:
I would be very surprised if there were such a cybercafe. One
that had both a Hebrew-Phoenican and a Hebrew-Hebrew font
with the Hebrew-Phoenician as the default would be much easier
to believe as a possibility. Still, it is a valid point. I think that if
Phoenician were to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Hudson
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:08 AM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Response to Everson Phoenician and why June 7?
...
In discussions of whether to
Jony Rosenne wrote:
*Except by Jony, who is always encouraging us to use markup
to make distinctions.
I don't recall saying anything like this in this Phoenician discussion.
Acknowledged. My point was not about that discussion in particular, but about the generic
question of to what degree
32 matches
Mail list logo
