Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Thanks Mark On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote: > I just filed the bug in the CLDR contact form. > > 2017-03-28 12:49 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > >> ​Thanks. Probably best as: >> >> unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id >>

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

I agree with Alstair. The list of font technology options was mostly to show that there are already a lot of options (some might even say too many), so font technology doesn't really limit our choices. Regards, Martin. On 2017/03/27 23:04, Alastair Houghton wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

​Good questions.​ On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Joan Montané wrote: > 1st one: point 4 (Unicode subdivision codes listed in emoji Unicode site) > arises something like chicken-egg problem. Vendors don't easily add new > subdivision-flags (because they aren't recommended),

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 28 Mar 2017, at 07:32, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > On 2017/03/28 01:03, Michael Everson wrote: >> On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins wrote: > >> The 1857 St Louis punches definitely included both the 1855 EW Ч and the >> 1859 OI <ЃІ>. Ken

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

2017-03-28 7:57 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there are > a number of different categories. > >1. *Ill-formed: *"$1" >2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to >

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Martin J. Dürst wrote: ​​ No, your work wouldn't be impossible. It might be quite a bit more > difficult, but not impossible. I have written papers about Han ideographs > and Japanese text processing where I had to create my own

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I note this in TR32 *3.2 Unicode Locale Identifier * EBNF ABNF unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id (transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? |

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

Hello Michael, others, On 2017/03/27 21:07, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 06:42, Martin J. Dürst wrote: The characters in question have different and undisputed origins, undisputed. If you change that to the somewhat more neutral "the shapes in question

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

​Thanks. Probably best as: unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id ( transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? | unicode_locale_extensions transformed_extensions? )? ;​ even clearer would be two steps: unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

I just filed the bug in the CLDR contact form. 2017-03-28 12:49 GMT+02:00 Mark Davis ☕️ : > ​Thanks. Probably best as: > > unicode_locale_id = unicode_language_id > ( transformed_extensions unicode_locale_extensions? > |

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:49, Michael Everson wrote: Sorry, but typographic control of that sort is grand for typesetting, where you can select ranges of text and language-tag it (assuming your program accepts and supports all the language tags you might need (which they don’t)) and you can select

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

Ideally a smart text renderer could as well display that glyph with a leading multiplication sign (a mathematical middle dot) and implicitly convert the following digits (and sign) as real superscript/exponent (using contextual substitution/positioning like for Eastern Arabic/Urdu), without

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

Philippe Verdy writes: > Ideally a smart text renderer could as well display that glyph with a > leading multiplication sign (a mathematical middle dot) and implicitly > convert the following digits (and sign) as real superscript/exponent > (using contextual

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:20, Michael Everson wrote: Ken transcribes into modern type a letter by Shelton dated 1859, in which “boy” is written В<ЃІ>, “few” as Й<ІЋ>, “truefully” [sic] as ГС<ІЋ>ЙЋТІ, and “you” as Џ<ІЋ>. These are all 1859 variants, yes? That would just show that these variants

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/27 21:59, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 08:05, Martin J. Dürst wrote: Consider 2EBC ⺼ CJK RADICAL MEAT and 2E9D ⺝ CJK RADICAL MOON which are apparently really supposed to have identical glyphs, though we use an old-fashioned style in the charts

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

Le 28/03/2017 à 02:22, Mark E. Shoulson a écrit : Aw, but ⏨ is awesome! It's much cooler-looking and more visually understandable than "e" for exponent notation. In some code I've been playing around with I support it as a valid alternative to "e". I Agree 1⏨3 times with you on this !

Re: different version of common/annotations/ja.xml

Thanks, I will file that ticket. I'd like to have another version of ja.xml for both TTS and non-TTS. Fujiwara On 03/28/17 15:20, Mark Davis ☕️-san wrote: Ah, yes. Sorry for my confusion. One main purpose for the short names is for TTS, and for that I think people felt that the reading was

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

(I'm sure you know this, Philippe, but a reminder for others: as far as the Unicode projects go, discussions on this list have no effect unless they are turned into a submission (UTC or Emoji proposal, CLDR or ICU ticket).) If you see any problems in the CLDR data, please file a ticket at

Re: different version of common/annotations/ja.xml

Ah, yes. Sorry for my confusion. One main purpose for the short names is for TTS, and for that I think people felt that the reading was more useful. However, it would probably be better for the keywords to have the normal spelling. You might consider filing a ticket at

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/28 01:03, Michael Everson wrote: On 27 Mar 2017, at 16:56, John H. Jenkins wrote: The 1857 St Louis punches definitely included both the 1855 EW Ч and the 1859 OI <ЃІ>. Ken Beesley shows them in smoke proofs in his 2004 paper on Metafont. Good to have some

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

On 3/28/2017 4:00 AM, Ian Clifton wrote: I’ve used ⏨ a couple of times, without explanation, in my own emails—without, as far as I’m aware, causing any misunderstanding. Works especially well, whenever it renders as a box with 23E8 inscribed!

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 28 Mar 2017, at 11:39, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> And what would the value of this be? Why should I (who have been doing this >> for two decades) not be able to use the word “character” when I believe it >> correct? Sometimes you people who have been here for a long

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

2017-03-28 18:30 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag : > On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > >> An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. >> > We need a pretzel emoji. We need a broken tooth emoji too !

Aw: Re: U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G

This is a script capital G or, in TeX notation, {\cal G}. It reflects the use of multiple styles of the same underlying alhabet in mathematics and sciences. It is not a capital script g (note the different ordering of capital and script).   --Jörg Knappen   I had found in 2013 a GꞬ

U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:10:58 +0900 "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: (in Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?) > On 2017/03/27 21:59, Michael Everson wrote: > > Aa and Ɑɑ are used contrastively for different sounds in some > > languages and in the IPA.

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji. A./

Re: U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G

Le 28/03/2017 à 18:14, Richard Wordingham a écrit : On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:10:58 +0900 "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: (in Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?) On 2017/03/27 21:59, Michael Everson wrote: Aa and Ɑɑ are used contrastively for

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Mark Davis wrote: > > > 3. Valid, but not recommended: "usca". Corresponds to the valid > > Unicode subdivision code for California according to > > http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences > >

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:41:38 -0700 "Doug Ewell" wrote: > "Not recommended," "not standard," "not interoperable," or any other > term ESC settles on for the 5000+ valid flag sequences that are not > England, Scotland, and Wales is just a short, easy step away from > deprecation

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

I don't think I want my text renderer to be *that* smart. If I want ⏨, I'll put ⏨. If I want a multiplication sign or something, I'll put that. Without the multiplication sign, it's still quite understandable, more so than just "e". It is valid for a text rendering engine to render "g"

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Kind of have to agree with Doug here. Either support the mechanism or don't. Saying "we, you CAN do this if you WANT to" always implies a "...but you probably shouldn't." Why even bother making it a possibility? On 03/28/2017 02:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: "Even though it is possible

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote: > On 3/28/2017 4:00 AM, Ian Clifton wrote: > > I’ve used ⏨ a couple of times, without explanation, in my own > emails—without, as far as I’m aware, causing any misunderstanding. > > Works especially well, whenever it

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 2017/03/29 01:47, Philippe Verdy wrote: 2017-03-28 18:30 GMT+02:00 Asmus Freytag : On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji. We need a broken tooth emoji too !

Re: Encoding of old compatibility characters

On 03/28/2017 09:09 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 3/28/2017 4:00 AM, Ian Clifton wrote: I’ve used ⏨ a couple of times, without explanation, in my own emails—without, as far as I’m aware, causing any misunderstanding. Works especially well, whenever it renders as a box with 23E8 inscribed! A./

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Hello Doug, On 2017/03/29 03:41, Doug Ewell wrote: If this story sounds vaguely familiar to old-timers, it's exactly the path that was followed the last time Plane 14 tag characters were under discussion, between 1998 and 2000: someone wrote an RFC to embed language tags in plain text using

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

> On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: >> An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. > We need a pretzel emoji. Already in Unicode 10 / emoji 5.0:

Re: Re: U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G

I don't think it is a script capital G, but I admit it is arguable. One of the reasons is that the related variables s and μ are not script capital. If you're interested, I could check in the book if script capital are used in this book for other notations. Le mar. 28 mars 2017 à 18:52, "Jörg

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

Mark Davis wrote: > 3. Valid, but not recommended: "usca". Corresponds to the valid > Unicode subdivision code for California according to > http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#valid-emoji-tag-sequences > and CLDR, but is not listed in http://unicode.org/Public/emoji/5.0/. "Not

Re: U+0261 LATIN SMALL LETTER SCRIPT G

On 3/28/2017 10:26 AM, Frédéric Grosshans wrote: I don't think it is a script capital G, but I admit it is arguable. One of the reasons is that the related variables s and μ are not script capital. If you're interested, I could check in the

Re: Standaridized variation sequences for the Desert alphabet?

On 3/28/2017 10:30 AM, Peter Edberg wrote: On Mar 28, 2017, at 9:30 AM, Asmus Freytag > wrote: On 3/28/2017 6:56 AM, Michael Everson wrote: An æ ligature is a ligature of a and of e. It is not some sort of pretzel. We need a pretzel emoji.

Re: Unicode Emoji 5.0 characters now final

To add to what Ken and Markus said: like many other identifiers, there are a number of different categories. 1. *Ill-formed: *"$1" 2. *Well-formed, but not valid: *"usx". Is *syntactic* according to http://unicode.org/reports/tr51/proposed.html#def_emoji_tag_sequence, but is not