Re: Counting Devanagari Aksharas

On 4/22/2017 9:25 PM, Manish Goregaokar via Unicode wrote: Backspace in browsers (chrome and firefox) deletes within EGCs too. They delete matras in devanagari, and jamos in hangul. They don't *exactly* work off of code points (e.g. flag emoji gets deleted as a

Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

On 8/16/2017 6:26 AM, Mike FABIAN via Unicode wrote: EastAsianWidth.txt contains: 3248..324F;A # No [8] CIRCLED NUMBER TEN ON BLACK SQUARE..CIRCLED NUMBER EIGHTY ON BLACK SQUARE i.e. it classifies the width of the characters at codepoints between 3248 and

Root Zone Label Generation Rules extended to 6 scripts

All, the ongoing effort to create label generation rules (LGRs) for the IDNs for the root zone of the DNS has now reached another milestone: Version 2 of the Root Zone LGR (RZ-LGR-2) has been published. It extends the RZ-LGR to six scripts.  You can

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

I performed a quick search "Informatik und Unicode" to see whether I could find documents from German academic institutions discussing Unicode in the context of computer science (Informatik). Among the first page of search results I found a number of summaries and presentations that may have

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

On 7/7/2017 12:55 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote: I've not (yet) located any assignments that try to address any of the "tricky" issues in the use of Unicode. That might be a good thing. Many introductory lessons or chapters or talks about Unicode dive almost

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

On 7/8/2017 3:36 AM, Otto Stolz via Unicode wrote: Übung Unicode Thanks, it's been too long. Anyway, I tried it, and the top search page yielded at least one programming exercise for UTF-8. That's the minimum level of Unicode proficiency that

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

On 7/8/2017 12:28 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 09:04:39 -0700 Asmus Freytag via Unicode <unicode@unicode.org> wrote: But some handling of combining mark (and also the new emoji sequences) would equally cons

Re: Should U+3248 ... U+324F be wide characters?

On 8/16/2017 7:23 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: These squared (or circled) characters however do not have registered variants for digits with descenders (used in traditional typographic fonts for Latin), such as 4, 7 or 9, or variable-width

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/15/2017 3:21 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: Second, the political reason: Now that ICU is a Unicode Consortium project, I think the Unicode Consortium should be particular sensitive to biases arising from being both the source of the spec and the source of a popular implementation.

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/15/2017 8:37 AM, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: On 15 May 2017, at 11:21, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: In reference to: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17168-utf-8-recommend.pdf I think Unicode should not adopt the proposed change. Disagree. An over-long

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/17/2017 2:31 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: There's some sort of rule that proposals should be made seven days in advance of the meeting. I can't find it now, so I'm not sure whether the actual rule was followed, let alone what authority it has.

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/15/2017 11:33 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: ICU uses UTF-16 as its in-memory Unicode representation, so ICU isn't representative of implementation concerns of implementations that use UTF-8 as their in-memory Unicode representation. Even though there are notable systems (Win32,

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/16/2017 10:30 AM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: Would you advocate replacing e0 80 80 with U+FFFD U+FFFD U+FFFD (1)

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/15/2017 11:50 PM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: I’m not sure how the discussion of “which is better” relates to the discussion of ill-formed UTF-8 at all. Clearly, the "which is better" issue is

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 9:48 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote: Given that one co-chair of the Emoji Subcommittee is from Apple and the other is from Google, you may wish to rethink your expectations about all this. I'd expect "zelpa" to feel validated by this info in their concern,

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 7:41 AM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: zelpa wrote: This is my real issue, Apple disregards guidelines, sets a de facto standard, Google races to copy them. It's actually sad to see how far other vendors will go to copy Apple's designs. I honestly think the consortium should try

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On 5/22/2017 3:49 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: One of the objectives is to use a current version of the UCD to determine, for example, which characters were in Version x.y. One needs that for a regular expression such as [:Age=3.0:], which also matches all characters that have

Re: Comparing Raw Values of the Age Property

On 5/23/2017 4:04 AM, Janusz S. Bien via Unicode wrote: Quote/Cytat - Manuel Strehl via Unicode (Tue 23 May 2017 11:33:24 AM CEST): The rising standard in the world of web development (and others) is called »Semantic Versioning« [1], that many projects adhere to or

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 5/23/2017 1:24 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: Hello Mark, On 2017/05/22 01:37, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: I actually didn't see any of this discussion until today. Many thanks for

Re: Petition to ban Google from designing emoji

On 5/18/2017 10:40 AM, David Faulks via Unicode wrote: You cannot always tell things like these are jokes, I have seen people argue seriously that Unicode should dictate or enforce emojis before. Many jokes contain

Re: Encoding of character for new Japanese era name after Heisei

The Japanese Era names are not tied to the personal "names of possible successors". While it is possible to spell out the name of an era using regular characters that have been encoded, but for time expressions it's been customary to have a single code

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 6/1/2017 10:41 AM, Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: I think that the (or a) key problem is that the current "best practice" is treated as "SHOULD" in RFC parlance. When what this really needs is a "MAY". People reading standards tend to treat "SHOULD" and

Re: How to Add Beams to Notes

On 5/1/2017 12:12 PM, Michael Bear via Unicode wrote: I am trying to make a music notation font. It will use the Musical Symbols block in Unicode (1D100-1D1FF), but, since that block has a bad rep for not

Re: Feedback on the proposal to change U+FFFD generation when decoding ill-formed UTF-8

On 6/1/2017 2:32 AM, Henri Sivonen via Unicode wrote: O On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:38 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Henri Sivonen wrote: If anything, I hope this thread results in the establishment of a requirement for proposals to come with proper research about

Re: IBM 1620 invalid character symbol

On 9/27/2017 9:32 AM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: The only font on that machine can be found by feeling the key strikers in the typewriter. In that context it's worth remembering that there while you could say for most typewriters that

Re: Unicode education in Schools

On 8/24/2017 10:17 AM, Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote: Because there are many systems that can now handle BMP characters but not cannot handle SMP characters. One example being systems that use mysql utf8 (3 byte encoding) and have not yet updated to utf8mb4 (4 byte encoding) So, I consider

Re: Ah the power of emoji! To encompass even science and mythology!

Philippe, thank you for your earnest efforts at explaining away a joke. I'm sure I'm speaking for the assembled congregation in applauding you for your tireless energy in setting the record straight. A./ On

Re: HTTPS

On 10/4/2017 6:08 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: At least ! It was important. Thanks for promoting HTTPS everywhere. I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means 2017-10-04 11:14 GMT+02:00 Mathias

Re: ASCII v Unicode

On 11/3/2017 2:13 AM, Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote: You may find https://twitter.com/andreschappo/status/926163719331176450 amusing  André Schappo You're wildly off in your page count. The

Re: A criteria for Emoji property assignment?

On 11/2/2017 9:11 AM, Rostislav via Unicode wrote: 3. In the Geometric Shapes block, only two characters (25AA ▪ and 25AB ▫) are considered emojis, while other 94 aren’t. While did just these two little squares deserve the honor of bearing Emoji property, in

Re: Aw: Re: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER SHARP S officially recognized

On 11/9/2017 6:40 PM, Elias Mårtenson via Unicode wrote: On 9 November 2017 at 18:12, Walter Tross wrote: Long story short: it's Abschlusssatz now (and

Re: Armenian Mijaket (Armenian colon)

On 12/5/2017 11:28 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: U+2024 is not supported in any fonts I have loaded. A websearch of mijaket gives nothing. U+20224 is used as a "leader dot", and does not match the expected metrics (it is  certainly

Re: Armenian Mijaket (Armenian colon)

On 12/5/2017 1:32 PM, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: Asmus, On 12/5/2017 12:35 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: I don't know the history of this particular "unification" Here are

Re: Fwd: L2/18-181

On 5/16/2018 3:41 PM, Anshuman Pandey via Unicode wrote: If folks are interested in a valid proposal for disunification of Bengali, please look at the proposal for Tirhuta. Location? A./

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 5/17/2018 8:08 AM, Martinho Fernandes via Unicode wrote: Hello, There are several mentions of synchronization with related standards in unicode.org, e.g. in https://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html, and https://www.unicode.org/faq/unicode_iso.html. However, all such mentions never mention

Re: Extended grapheme cluster stability

On thing to bear in mind about breaks: Unicode is plain-text and not "final rendered text". Many types of breaks depend on things like actual font selection, column width and other factors determined by styling. They are therefore not necessarily stable from a plain text perspective (the same

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 6/9/2018 12:01 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: Still a computer should be understandable off-line, so CLDR providing a standard library of error messages could be appreciated by the industry. The kind of translations that CLDR accumulates,

Re: Can NFKC turn valid UAX 31 identifiers into non-identifiers?

On 6/7/2018 9:01 AM, Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: But please don’t misunderstand; I am not — and have not been — arguing against non-ASCII identifiers. We were asked whether there were any problems. These are problems (or perhaps we might

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 6/8/2018 2:28 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:33:20 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: […] There's no value added in creating "mirrors" of something that is successf

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 6/8/2018 5:01 AM, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: and achieving a fullscale merger with ISO/IEC 15897, after which the valid data stay hosted entirely in CLDR, and ISO/IEC 15897 would be its ISO mirror. I wonder if Mark Davis will be

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 6/12/2018 7:58 AM, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: Marcel, You have put words into my mouth. Please don’t. Your description of what I said is NOT accurate. On 12 Jun 2018, at 03:53, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: And in this thread I

Re: Unicode characters unification

In the discussion leading up to this it has been implied that Unicode encodes / should encode concepts or pure shape. And there's been some confusion as to were concerns about sorting or legacy encodings fit in. Time to step back a bit: Primarily the Unicode Standard encodes by character

Re: Why is TAMIL SIGN VIRAMA (pulli) not Alphabetic?

One of the general principles is that combining marks inherit the property of their base character. Normally, "inherited" should be the only property value for combining marks. There have been some deviations from this over the years, for various reasons, and there are some properties (such

Re: preliminary proposal: New Unicode characters for Arabic music half-flat and half-sharp symbols

On 5/28/2018 6:30 AM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: Unifying these would make a real mess of lower casing! German has a special sign ß for "ss", without upper capital version. You may want to retract the second part of that

Re: Can NFKC turn valid UAX 31 identifiers into non-identifiers?

On 6/6/2018 2:25 PM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: On 4 Jun 2018, at 21:49, Manish Goregaokar via Unicode wrote: The Rust community is considering adding non-ascii identifiers, which follow UAX #31 (XID_Start XID_Continue*, with tweaks). The

Re: Uppercase ß

On 5/29/2018 5:57 AM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: On 29 May 2018, at 14:47, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: The main point is what users of ẞ and ß would think, and Unicode to adjust accordingly. Since users of

Re: Italic mu in squared Latin abbreviations?

On 6/20/2018 2:17 PM, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Ivan Panchenko wrote: Is there a reason why the mu does not appear upright It was probably italicized in the glyphs printed in the relevant Japanese standard, back in the 1990s.

Re: Emoji for major planets at least?

On 1/18/2018 6:55 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: Hello people. We have sun, earth and moon emoji (3 for the earth and more for the moon's phases). But we don't have emoji for the rest of the planets. We have astrological symbols for all the planets and

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

Top level IDN domain names can not contain 02BC, nor 0027 or 2019. (RFC 6912 gives the rationale and RZ-LGR the implementation, see MSR-3) A./ On 1/18/2018 3:00 AM, Andre Schappo via Unicode wrote:

Re: Emoji for major planets at least?

suggestion as to how these might show up in use. A./ On Jan 18

Re: What is U+0E46 THAI CHARACTER MAIYAMOK?

On 2/7/2018 9:23 PM, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan via Unicode wrote: An apparent way to do it properly is to use NBSP before MAIYAMOK and a normal space after, and not to include any leading space in the glyph, but it seems inconvenent to input NBSP in common text

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 2/14/2018 10:37 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: On 14-Feb-2018 22:45, "Alastair Houghton" wrote:

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On 2/14/2018 8:14 AM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: Given that in the US vanity vehicle registrations with arbitrary alphanumeric sequences upto 7 characters are permitted (I am correct I hope?), I wonder who (here?) owns the UNICODE registration?

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

Words suffice.  We go by what people actually say rather than whatever they might have meant.  When we read text, we go by what's written. That is a worthy opinion, but not one that is shared, either in principle or in lived practice (esp. related to digital communication) by vast numbers of

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On 2/15/2018 11:54 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Pierpaolo Bernardi wrote: But it's always a good time to argue against the addition of more nonsense to what we already have got. It's an open-ended set and precedent for encoding

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2/21/2018 11:45 AM, David Starner via Unicode wrote: On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode wrote: “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English

Re: IDC's versus Egyptian format controls

On 2/16/2018 10:20 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 08:22:23 -0800 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: On 2/16/2018 8:00 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: A more portable solution for ideographs is to render an Ideographic Description

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 2/21/2018 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: 2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled Hosny : Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would

Re: Suggestions?

On 2/21/2018 7:23 AM, Jeb Eldridge via Unicode wrote:     Where can I post suggestions and feedback for Unicode?     What kinds of suggestions / what kind of feedback

Re: Unifying E_Modifier and Extend in UAX 29 (i.e. the necessity of GB10)

On 1/1/2018 6:52 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 13:24:29 +0530 Manish Goregaokar via Unicode wrote: sounds very much like a degenerate case to me. Generally yes, but I'm not sure that they'd be inappropriate for Egyptian hieroglyphs showing

Re: Traditional and Simplified Han in UTS 39

The full excerpt from the UTS reads: Mark Chinese strings as “mixed script” if they contain both simplified (S) and traditional (T) Chinese characters, using the Unihan data in the Unicode Character Database [UCD ]. 1. The criterion can only be

Re: Diacritic marks in parentheses

On 7/26/2018 9:27 AM, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote: I would not expect for Ä+combining () above = Ä᪻ to look right except with specialized fonts. http://demo.icu-project.org/icu-bin/nbrowser?t=%C3%84%5Cu1ABB==0

Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)

On 8/21/2018 1:01 AM, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: On 2018-08-20, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: Moreover, they [William's pronoun symbols] are once again an attempt to shoehorn Overington's pet project, "language-independent

Re: Private Use areas

On 8/27/2018 2:20 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode wrote: > That sounds like a non-conformant use of characters

Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)

On 8/20/2018 7:09 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Leo Broukhis responded to William Overington: I decided that trying to design emoji for 'I' and for 'You' seemed interesting so I decided to have a go at designing some.

Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

I would say the problem lies in the attempt to exchange arbitrary raw data and expect perfectly compatible rendering. In the absence of very explicit markup there's simply no expectation that all users see precisely the same thing. Editors for plain text will wrap

Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

On 7/18/2018 1:51 AM, Shai Berger via Unicode wrote: The trade-off you seem to prefer is to make the "plain text is universally readable" idea from the core Unicode definition, not applicable to BiDi text. Your idea would simply outlaw being able to

Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

On 7/18/2018 1:51 AM, Shai Berger via Unicode wrote: My claim is that in the absence of an agreed or conveyed higher-level protocol, this default must be respected. Not how higher-level protocols work in Unicode. If you say that you support the

Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

On 7/18/2018 6:43 AM, philip chastney via Unicode wrote: except that I remember a conference where one of the paricipants noted that fully one-third of the time allocated to each presentation was taken up explaining the presenter's notation :)

Re: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059)

The use case would seem to be more properly served by some form of registration mechanism, like the one IVD represents for ideographs. The use of "standardized" variation sequences with the understanding that those would be (fairly) widely implemented

Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext

On 7/16/2018 8:30 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 10:53:03 +0300 Shai Berger via Unicode wrote: What I'm not OK with is: !Hello, World Which is what you'll see if your editor decides to use RTL directionality for

Re: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059)

On 7/16/2018 10:04 PM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: I understand there is no sufficient demand for the Unicode Consortium maintaining a supplementary non-ideographic variation database. Hence for the time being a kind of Private Use variation database seems

Re: Memoji

while fascinating, I agree with John, the topic is best treated as out of scope for plain text. Let's take this discussion off this list. A./ On 7/10/2018 1:43 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: Thank you for

Re: Tamil Brahmi Short Mid Vowels

On 9/11/2018 5:02 PM, Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote: On Windows, Khmer is rendered with a dedicated shaping engine. I don't see a need to alter that engine or integrate Khmer with USE. How we fix Tai Tham, which does go to USE is a different matter. We need to

Re: Translating the standard

On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: Time to correct some facts. The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France

Re: A sketch with the best-known Swiss tongue twister

OK folks - this kind of thing really should have been taken off-line, but when people start denying things that can be confirmed by looking at the mail archive, it's definitely time to close the topic. A./ On 3/12/2018 4:31 PM,

Re: Submissions open for 2020 Emoji

On 4/19/2018 5:32 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: > imagine I discover that someone has already proposed the emoji that I am interested in In some cases we've have contacted people to

Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode

On 3/4/2018 9:12 AM, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote: On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 6:10 AM, Helena Miton via Unicode wrote: Greetings. Is there a way to know

Re: [Unicode] Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode

On 3/5/2018 9:03 AM, suzuki toshiya via Unicode wrote: I have a question; if some people try to make a translated version of Unicode, they should contact all font contributors and ask for the license? Unicode Consortium cannot

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 10/28/2018 11:50 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: On 2018/10/29 05:42, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: This is no different the Irish name McCoy which can be written MᶜCoy where the raising of the c is actually just decorative, though

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 10/31/2018 3:37 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: On 10/31/2018 11:10 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: which, if my understanding

Re: use vs mention (was: second attempt)

Organic chemistry would need sub/sup alpha, beta and gamma (perhaps others). A./ On 10/31/2018 3:35 PM, Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote: We don't know whether the abbreviation "Mr", spelled exactly this way, already

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 11/1/2018 12:52 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:35:19 -0700 Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in applying certain styling attributes to things like e-mail or discussion

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: On 10/31/2018 11:27 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: but we don't have an agreement

Re: second attempt

On 10/31/2018 2:38 AM, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: You could use the various hacks you've discussed, with modifier letters; but that is not "encoding", that is "abusing Unicode to do markup". At least, that's the view I take! +1 In general, I

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 10/27/2018 4:10 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: Hi! On the over 100 years old postcard https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6 you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in Polish) as meaning "Magister". First question

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 11/1/2018 10:23 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 8:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 11/1/2018 7:59 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and spell things the way they are written.  The abbreviation in question as written consists of three recognizable symbols.  An

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 11/2/2018 4:31 AM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Suppose someone found a hundred year old form from Poland which included a section for "sign your name" and "print your name" which had been filled out by a man with the typically Polish name

Re: Aleph-umlaut

terms of learning about writing systems. For example, is it something that was absolutely common with "standardiyed" conventions, or more of an ad-hoc thing? A./ Anyway, still interesting, I thought. ~mark

Re: Aleph-umlaut

On 11/11/2018 4:20 PM, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: On 11/11/18 4:16 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: On 11/11/2018 12:32 PM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: Wir sind uns dessen bewusst, dass von

Re: Aleph-umlaut

On 11/11/2018 12:32 PM, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote: On 11 Nov 2018, at 07:03, Beth Myre via Unicode wrote: Hi Mark, This is a really cool find, and it's interesting that you might have a relative mentioned in it. After looking at it more,

Re: Aleph-umlaut

On 11/10/2018 10:03 PM, Beth Myre via Unicode wrote: Hi Mark, I (re-)transliterated it, and it reads: Wir sind uns dessen bewusst, dass von Seite der

Re: wws dot org

On 1/16/2019 6:33 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: So to date, Unicode has only made half its way, and for every single script in the Standard there is another script out there that remains still unsupported. First things

Re: NNBSP

On 1/17/2019 9:35 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: [quoted mail] But the French "espace fine insécable" was requested long long before Mongolian was discussed for encodinc in

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On 1/16/2019 7:38 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote: Computer text tradition aside, nobody seems to offer any legitimate reason why such information isn't worthy of being preservable in plain-text.  Perhaps there isn't one. By introducing

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

I would full agree and I think Mark puts it really well in the message below why some of the proposals brandished here are no longer plain text but "not-so-plain" text. I think we are better served with a solution that provides some form of "light" rich text, for

Re: NNBSP

On 1/18/2019 7:27 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: I understand only better why a significant majority of UTC is hating French. Francophobia is also palpable in Canada, beyond any technical reasons, especially in the IT

Re: NNBSP

Marcel, about your many detailed *technical* questions about the history of character properties, I am afraid I have no specific recollection. French is not the only language that uses a space to group figures. In fact, I grew up with thousands separators being

Re: NNBSP

On 1/18/2019 7:27 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: Covering existing character sets (National, International and Industry) was an (not "the") important goal at the time: such

  1   2   >