From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca T
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 2:26 PM
> As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and flimsier
> argument against inclusion — why isn’t there a larger community of PETSCII
> enthusaists? Partially
> At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will
> get very detailed very quickly.
> I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together?
> Everybody interested, raise your hand
Yes please.
William
This 2x3 block graphic set was also part of Videotex/Teletext/Antiope
standards in Europe (used on PCs, dedicated terminals, and TV programs, and
still supported in more recent teletext technologies, even if many smart
TVs offer other interactive protocols based on web standards, or possibly
On 04/06/2017 08:07 AM, Rebecca T wrote:
Here’s a copy of the Teletext character set; it includes box-drawing
characters
for all combinations of a 2×3 grid of cells. 2⁶ = 64 characters, so we
might
need a new block.
[1]: http://www.galax.xyz/TELETEXT/CHARSET.HTM
My old TRS-80 also did
On 04/05/2017 05:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote:
As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and
flimsier
argument against inclusion
Indeed. This is the chicken-and-egg problem, and you are not the first
to (rightly) point it out as a flimsy excuse. Thanks for bringing it up
Count me in!
I’m partial for one large unified proposal, FWIW.
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Michael Everson wrote:
>>
>> > Everybody interested, raise your hand…
>>
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > Everybody interested, raise your hand…
>
> I'm in.
I'm in as well of course.
> Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
>
> > The question is, do we want to add these missing graphics characters
> >
Michael Everson wrote:
> Everybody interested, raise your hand…
I'm in.
Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
> The question is, do we want to add these missing graphics characters
> incrementally, platform by platform, or put together a larger proposal
> for, say, one big Block Elements Extended block?
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Michael Everson
wrote:
> At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will
> get very detailed very quickly.
>
I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together?
On 6 Apr 2017, at 17:36, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
>
> At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will
> get very detailed very quickly.
>
> I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together?
Everybody interested, raise your hand…
The Teletext set of 2x3 block characters also covers a significant chunk of
the TRS-80 and CoCo character sets:
http://www.kreativekorp.com/software/fonts/trs80.shtml
I have been thinking of proposing those characters for a while, actually,
and that would have been my next proposal after
On 6 Apr 2017, at 04:32, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
> We do have to provide Unicode with fonts, I believe. We can use an existing
> C64 font, such as Pet Me. Or, we can create a new font with vectorized
> versions of the characters.
I’ll help with that; we should
Here’s a copy of the Teletext character set; it includes box-drawing
characters
for all combinations of a 2×3 grid of cells. 2⁶ = 64 characters, so we might
need a new block.
[1]: http://www.galax.xyz/TELETEXT/CHARSET.HTM
On 6 Apr 2017, at 08:25, Elias Mårtenson wrote:
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to get in touch with active Commodore 64 communities
> to find out how people deal with this today? I'm sure there are use cases
> that none of us have thought about.
Since most of the issue is
Wouldn't it make sense to get in touch with active Commodore 64 communities
to find out how people deal with this today? I'm sure there are use cases
that none of us have thought about.
Regards,
Elias
On 6 April 2017 at 15:19, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
> I've completed my
I've completed my unified chart:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10RJKTNFZFEww0yRVPzPdeNnyC_PUkAMhn7OVB7YdTFc/edit?usp=sharing
The result is either 20 or 24 characters to be encoded, depending on
whether or not 4 of them should be unified with existing characters.
14 have fairly obvious
On 6 April 2017 at 11:32, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
We do have to provide Unicode with fonts, I believe. We can use an existing
> C64 font, such as Pet Me. Or, we can create a new font with vectorized
> versions of the characters.
>
Are there any existing C64 fonts with
The Wikipedia page for PETSCII [1] only marks 20 characters as not having
Unicode equivalents; 2px (light) and 3px (heavy) horizontal and vertical
bars
at various non-center positions, diagonal shading characters, and corner
characters.
I’ve done some processing to the table on [1] to filter out
Rebecca Bettencourt wrote:
> I'm all willing to help put together a proposal for encoding missing
block
> element characters, but I would need other people to a) gather evidence
of
> use in plain text and b) write up the proposal in Unicode's formal
language
> since I've never proposed characters
On 6 April 2017 at 09:44, James Kass wrote:
> Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
>
> > I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where
> > they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :)
>
> I hope you do. That would be a good starting point.
>
I'm working on
On 6 April 2017 at 09:44, James Kass wrote:
> Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
>
> > I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where
> > they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :)
>
> I hope you do. That would be a good starting point.
>
The Wikipedia
Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
> I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where
> they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :)
I hope you do. That would be a good starting point.
> I'm all willing to help put together a proposal for encoding missing
> block element characters,
On 4/5/2017 4:49 PM, James Kass wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote,
There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric.
Indeed not. How fortunate we are that nobody has posted any.
Indeed. Grabbed the wrong item from my word bin today.
A./
Best regards,
James Kass
I agree with Rebecca. It’s going to be a handful of characters, used by the
handful of people who use legacy character sets. Those people exist (I run Mac
OS 9 regularly because it’s necessary for some of my work) and since some of
these legacy characters are encoded, it makes sense to make
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric.
Indeed not. How fortunate we are that nobody has posted any.
Best regards,
James Kass
On 4/5/2017 2:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote:
> If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based
systems and
> those using PETSCII
There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our
society
functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling
> If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based systems
and
> those using PETSCII
There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our society
functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling
computer in history [1] because nobody cared
*From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] * On Behalf Of *Rebecca
> Bettencourt
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:42 AM
> *To:* Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com>
> *Cc:* unicode <unicode@unicode.org>
> *Subject:* Re: PETSCII mapping?
>
>
>
> O
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Unicode is not an archive of anything ever used on computers.
>
Why not? Isn't one of Unicode's goals to support the conversion of
documents using legacy character sets into Unicode? I do not understand
why, say, the
On 4/5/2017 1:18 AM, Elias Mårtenson
wrote:
I have been searching, trying to find some
information as to why there is a large set of symbols in PETSCII
which cannot be mapped to Unicode.
PETSCII is the character set used by
30 matches
Mail list logo