Hooman,
There is this application called Unibook that may help you NOT write the
software for browsing the database. Depends on your needs of course:
http://www.unicode.org/unibook/
roozbeh
On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 06:38, Hooman Mehr wrote:
Hi Behdad,
On Jun 26, 2004, at 1:50 AM,
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote:
Hi Behdad,
You are right, that was my mistake. I had some wrong perceptions about
U+060D that made me believe it would belong there. I am starting to
feel I need to import all those data files into a database for quick
reference. I am getting tired of
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote:
Hi Behdad,
Hello,
Glad to hear the good news. Is there anything that may impact end
users? If there is, please provide a none-technical overview of the
changes that will affect normal users of Persian text on computer.
No, not really.
What I meant
Hi Behdad,
On Jun 26, 2004, at 1:50 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
I'm confused now. What do you expect in PropList.txt about
U+060D? If you read UCD.html, it says that files like
PropList.txt just list those code points that hold a true value
for the binary property. Why they don't list the all??
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote:
Excellent news. While talking about clarifications, I couldn't find the
properties for U+060D. Do you have information in this regard?
No idea. What kind of information are you looking for? If this
is
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Hooman Mehr wrote:
BTW, Behdad is attending the Unicode Consortium's Technical Committee
meeting right now, and later the ISO JTC1/SC2 ones. I'm sure the UTC
meeting (which will be the first with a FarsiWeb member present) will
have good news for us (which may include
Dear Roozbeh,
In page 2 (physical page 3) of the Locale draft, the short format
locale is specified in a table with some examples and explanation. The
missing information is this:
We know that the correct way to read (pronounce) a short format date
that looks like 1358/1/12 is 12-e Farvardin-e
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 18:41, Hooman Mehr wrote:
[...] The best solution in my opinion is to provide exact format strings (as
arrays of Unicode characters with specific placeholders for date
elements). This will avoid any possible ambiguity in the specification.
That will be specified in a
