Re: abstract characters, semantics, meaningful transformations ... Was: Tibetan Paluta

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 7:26 AM Naena Guru via Unicode wrote: > This whole attempt to make digitizing Indic script some esoteric, > 'abstract', 'semantic representation' and so on seems to me is an attempt > to make Unicode the realm of the some super humans. > Unicode is

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

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 8:41 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Yes, UTF-8 is more efficient for primarily ASCII text, but that is not the > case for other situations UTF-8 is clearly more efficient space-wise that includes more ASCII characters than characters

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

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:45 AM Alastair Houghton < alast...@alastairs-place.net> wrote: > That’s true anyway; imagine the database holds raw bytes, that just happen > to decode to U+FFFD. There might seem to be *two* names that both contain > U+FFFD in the same place. How do you distinguish

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

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:42 AM Alastair Houghton < alast...@alastairs-place.net> wrote: > If you’re about to mutter something about security, consider this: > security code *should* refuse to compare strings that contain U+FFFD (or at > least should never treat them as equal, even to

Re: Running out of code points, redux (was: Re: Feedback on the proposal...)

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:13 PM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Sorry to be late with this, but if 20.1 bits turn out to not be enough, > what about 21 bits? > > That would still limit UTF-8 to four bytes, but would almost double the > code space. Assuming

Fwd: Unicode education in Schools

-- Forwarded message - From: David Starner Date: Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 6:16 PM Subject: Re: Unicode education in Schools To: Richard Wordingham On Thu, Aug 24, 2017, 5:26 PM Richard Wordingham via Unicode <

Linearized tilde?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_reference_alphabet says "The 1982 revision of the alphabet was made by Michael Mann and David Dalby, who had attended the Niamey conference. It has 60 letters; some are quite different from the 1978 version." and offers the linearized tilde, a tilde squeezed

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

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 6:31 PM Shriramana Sharma via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > On 23-Jan-2018 10:03, "James Kass via Unicode" > wrote: > > (bottle, east, skier, crucial, cherry) > s'i's'a, s'yg'ys, s'an'g'ys'y, s'es'u's'i, s'i'i'e > sxixsxa, sxygxys,

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API > hasn’t changed all that much since Windows NT 4/95, whereas Apple has > basically thrown away all the work it did up to Mac OS

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:55 AM Erik Pedersen via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Dear Unicode Digest list members, > > Emoji, in my opinion, are almost entirely outside the scope of the Unicode > project. Unlike text composed of the world’s traditional alphabetic, > syllabic, abugida or

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:16 AM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be that the emoji > were definitely outside the scope of the Unicode project as encoding > them violated Unicode's initial encoding principles. > They were

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:35 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > David Starner wrote, > > > They were characters being interchanged as text > > in current use. > > They were in-line graphics being interchanged as though they were > text. And they still are. And we still

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:30 PM Adam Borowski via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > þ or ą count the same as LATIN TURNED CAPITAL LETTER SAMPI WITH HORNS AND TAIL WITH SMALL LETTER X WITH CARON. þ is in Latin-1, and ą is in Latin-A; the first is essential, even in its marginal characters,

Re: metric for block coverage

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 3:42 AM Adam Borowski wrote: > I probably used a bad example: scripts like Cyrillic (not even Supplement) > include both essential letters and those which are historic only or used by > old folks in a language spoken by 1000, who use Russian (or

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

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English word attested back to 1590. > Curmudgeony may be identified as misspelled by Google, but it's got a bit of usage dating back a hundred years. Wiktionary's entry

Re: Suggestions?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:55 AM Jeb Eldridge via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > Where can I post suggestions and feedback for Unicode? > Here is as good as any place. There are specific places for a few specific things, but likely if you do have something that's likely to get changed,

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

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > I think it's so cute that some of us think we can advise Nazarbayev on > whether to use straight or curly apostrophes or accents or x's or > whatever. Like he would listen to a bunch of Western technocrats. >

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

On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 7:41 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. > Worthy of being preservable? Again, if you want rich

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

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 2:57 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > At which time it would only become a moot point for Twitter users. > There's also Facebook and other on-line groups. Plus scholars and > linguists. And interoperability. > How do you envision this working? In practice, English is

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:09 AM Tex via Unicode wrote: > The arguments against italics seem to be: > > ·Unicode is plain text. Italics is rich text. > > ·We haven't had it until now, so we don't need it. > > ·There are many rich text solutions, such as html. > > ·

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

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:47 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > Although there probably isn't really any concerted effort to "keep > plain-text mediocre", it can sometimes seem that way. > Dennis Ritchie allegedly replied to requests for new features in C with “If you want PL/I, you know

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 5:17 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Enabling plain-text doesn't make rich-text poor. > Adding italics to Unicode will complicate the implementation of all rich text applications that currently support italics. > People who regard plain-text with derision, disdain,

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > *If* the VS is ignored by searches, as apparently it should be and some > have reported that it is, then VS-type solutions would NOT be a problem > when it comes to searches Who is using VS-type solutions? I could not enter

Re: Encoding italic

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 11:53 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Even though /we/ know how to do > it and have software installed to help us do it. You're emailing from Gmail, which has support for italics in email. The world has, in general, solved this problem. > > How do you envision this

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:19 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > Would there be any advantages to rich-text apps if italics were added to > Unicode? Is there any cost/benefit data? You've made an assertion > about complication to rich-text apps which I can neither confirm nor refute. It's

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:18 PM Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:29:42 -0800 > David Starner via Unicode wrote: > > > The superscripts show a problem with multiple encoding; even if you > > think they should be Unicode superscripts, and t

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 2:03 AM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > The boundaries of plain text have advanced since the concept originated > and will probably continue to do so. Stress can currently be > represented in plain text with conventions used in lieu of existing > typographic practice.

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

Emoji were being encoded as characters, as codepoints in private use areas. That inherently called for a Unicode response. Bidirectional support is a headache; the amount of confusion and outright exploits from them is way higher then we like.The HTML support probably doesn't help that. However,

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > It's subjective, really. It depends on how one views plain-text and > one's expectations for its future. Should plain-text be progressive, > regressive, or stagnant? Because those are really the only choices. > And opinions

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:03 PM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: > No, the casing idea isn't actually a dumb one. As Asmus has shown, one > of the best ways to understand what Unicode does with respect to text > variants is that style works on spans of characters (words,...), and is > rich

Re: A last missing link for interoperable representation

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:58 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > David Starner wrote, > > > Can some books be mostly handled with Unicode plain text > > and italics? Sure. HTML can handle them quite nicely. ... > > Yes, many books can be handled very well with HTML using simple > mark-up. If

Re: Encoding italic

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 3:59 AM Kent Karlsson via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > > Den 2019-02-08 21:53, skrev "Doug Ewell via Unicode" >: > > • Reverse on: ESC [7m > > • Reverse off: ESC [27m > > "Reverse" = "switch background and foreground colours". > > This is an (odd) colour thing.

Re: Encoding italic

On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:16 PM Tex via Unicode wrote: > Twitter was offered as an example, not the only example just one of the most > ubiquitous. Many messaging apps and other apps would benefit from italics. > The argument is not based on adding italics to twitter. And again, color me

Re: Encoding italic

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:56 AM Tex wrote: > > David, > > "italics has never been considered part of plain text and has always been > considered outside of plain text. " > > Time to change the definition if that is what is holding you back. That's not a definition; that's a fact. Again, it's

Re: Encoding italic

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:37 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > As Tex Texin observed, differences of opinion as to where we draw the > line between text and mark-up are somewhat ideological. If a compelling > case for handling italics at the plain-text level can be made, then the > fact that

Re: Encoding italic

On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 12:04 PM James Kass via Unicode wrote: > A new beta of BabelPad has been released which enables input, storing, > and display of italics, bold, strikethrough, and underline in plain-text Okay? Ed can do that too, along with nano and notepad. It's called HTML (TeX, Troff).

Re: Unicode "no-op" Character?

On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:41 PM Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote: > Which leads us to the key. The desire is for a character that has no public > meaning, but has some sort of private meaning. In other words it has a > private use. Oddly enough, there is a group of characters intended for >

Re: On the lack of a SQUARE TB glyph

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 8:57 PM Fred Brennan via Unicode wrote: > The purpose of Unicode is plaintext encoding, is it not? The square TB form is > fundamentally no different than the square form of Reiwa, U+32FF ㋿, which was > added in a hurry. The difference is that SQUARE TB's necessity and use

Re: comma ellipses

I still see the encoding of the original ellipsis as a mistake, probably for compatibility with some older standard that included it because the system wasn't smart enough to intelligently handle "..." as ellipsis. -- Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.