Re: Fw: Latin Script Danda
On 4/19/2019 6:57 PM, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: I don't know many modern fonts that display 007C as a broken glyph. In fact I haven't seen a broken line pipe glyph since the MS-DOS days. Nowadays we have 00A6 for that. Same here. In fact, couldn't find any example among installed fonts on a Windows 7 (not even Windows 10) system before running out of patience. That seems to indicate that the disunification of vertical bar and broken bar was complete 10 years ago. A./
Re: Fw: Latin Script Danda
I don't know many modern fonts that display 007C as a broken glyph. In fact I haven't seen a broken line pipe glyph since the MS-DOS days. Nowadays we have 00A6 for that.
Fw: Latin Script Danda
Begin forwarded message: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:30:32 +0100 From: Richard Wordingham To: Shriramana Sharma Subject: Re: Latin Script Danda On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:33:35 +0530 Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in our > favourite Latin script fonts. See for example: > https://twitter.com/ShriramanaS/status/793480884116529152 The broken bar glyph of the pipe character does not feel appropriate. > It would be ideal for Sanskrit/Indic text in IAST/ISO to be > displayable/printable using any common Latin font which is found > typographically pleasant. For instance the font I have used in that > Twitter post is Gentium Basic. I use this font for most of my Latin > script publication purposes (including Unicode documents) and it > contains the pipe character but it does not contain Devanagari > characters. > It would be difficult to canvas Latin font vendors to include the > Devanagari characters 0964/0965 on a small technicality of character > property. Font designers for many Indic scripts have had to learn that U+0964 and U+0965 have the script property of 'Common', not Devanagari. I don't trust automated font pickers in that respect, though. > Is there a particular reason it's *really* necessary to include Latn > in the script extension property of 0964/0965? No more so than including Indian scripts in the list. There has been a threat to use the script extension property in breaking text into script runs, and U+0964 and U+0965 are often better with script-sensitive forms. Richard.
Re: Emoji Haggadah
I cannot; definitely it requires first good knowldge of English (to find possible synonyms, plus phonetic approximations, including using abbreviatable words), and Hebrew culture (to guess names and the context). All this text looks completely random and makes no sense otherwise. Le mar. 16 avr. 2019 à 04:22, Tex via Unicode a écrit : > Oy veh! > > > > *From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] *On Behalf Of *Mark > E. Shoulson via Unicode > *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2019 5:27 PM > *To:* unicode@unicode.org > *Subject:* Emoji Haggadah > > > > The only thing more disturbing than the existence of The Emoji Haggadah ( > https://www.amazon.com/Emoji-Haggadah-Martin-Bodek/dp/1602803463/) is the > fact that I'm starting to find that I can read it... > > > > ~mark >
Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 19:54:47 +0530
Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Or maybe the Grantha candrabindu can be used, since there is already
> evidence for mixed usage of the scripts and nukta characters have been
> encoded for Tamil usage in the Grantha block for this same reason
> despite Grantha users objecting to it as unattested!
That seems to be the approved solution - the script_extension property
of U+11301 GRANTHA SIGN CANDRABINDU is {Gran, Taml}.
Richard.
Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:36:16 +0530 Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode > wrote: > > That's a fair point. My problem is that someone is claiming of > > U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote > > saying it is to be used with Devanagari". > > Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already > has a candrabindu? I know any such footnote would be wrong. Disproving it ever existed is trickier. I can imagine a statement that it "represents the Devanagari candrabindu", which could after the passage of years change into the claim in someone's human memory. > > However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the > > general combining diacritics in Indic scripts. > Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining > Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that > separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text > shaping engines or such. That reminds me - what if anything is happening about Tamil script candrabindu? You reported that U+0310 was being used in that rôle. Richard.
Re: Script_extension Property of U+0310 Combining Candrabindu
On 4/19/19, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > That's a fair point. My problem is that someone is claiming of > U+0310 that "Somewhere in the Unicode specifications is a footnote > saying it is to be used with Devanagari". Why would anyone want to use 0310 with any Indic script that already has a candrabindu? > However, some people get rather upset with the idea of using the > general combining diacritics in Indic scripts. Many Vedic svara characters have lookalikes among the Combining Diacritics but they were encoded anyway since IIUC the UTC felt that separate characters would help preserving sanity in implementing text shaping engines or such. -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा ူ၆ိျိါအူိ၆ါး
Re: Latin Script Danda
We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in our favourite Latin script fonts. See for example: https://twitter.com/ShriramanaS/status/793480884116529152 It would be ideal for Sanskrit/Indic text in IAST/ISO to be displayable/printable using any common Latin font which is found typographically pleasant. For instance the font I have used in that Twitter post is Gentium Basic. I use this font for most of my Latin script publication purposes (including Unicode documents) and it contains the pipe character but it does not contain Devanagari characters. It would be difficult to canvas Latin font vendors to include the Devanagari characters 0964/0965 on a small technicality of character property. Is there a particular reason it's *really* necessary to include Latn in the script extension property of 0964/0965? -- Shriramana Sharma ஶ்ரீரமணஶர்மா श्रीरमणशर्मा ူ၆ိျိါအူိ၆ါး
