Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 10:02, C Bobroff wrote: > Ok, I'll see what I can create. (By the way, they still haven't fixed the > space bar problem, not that you were holding your breath.) I've contacted a few more member of the MS team with an exact problem report. That will supposedly get fixed in a

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > There is a maximum of four UTF-16 units (four normal characters, or two > characters outside BMP). Ok, I'll see what I can create. (By the way, they still haven't fixed the space bar problem, not that you were holding your breath.) Thank you for

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:43, C Bobroff wrote: > Oh my gosh, you're so very right! Now I can put entire words! Now you'd > really better stop me! There is a maximum of four UTF-16 units (four normal characters, or two characters outside BMP). roozbeh _

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:39, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Don't be hasty. Leave some unused for later when we encode new > characters ;). That is supposed to happen, actually. The Persian Academy is starting a project to define the repretoire of characters used in Persian, and recommendations for the

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Don't be hasty. Leave some unused for later when we encode new > characters ;). Noted. -Connie ___ PersianComputing mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sharif.edu/mailman/listinfo/persiancomputing

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > There is. Just input multiple characters in the box that asks you for > the character. > Oh my gosh, you're so very right! Now I can put entire words! Now you'd really better stop me! -Connie ___ Persian

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, C Bobroff wrote: > ok! Thank you for your blessing. It is indeed a shame to allow keys to go > unused. Don't be hasty. Leave some unused for later when we encode new characters ;). behdad > -Connie ___ PersianComputing mailing li

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:31, C Bobroff wrote: > I wish there was a way to put 2-3 characters on a single keystroke with > this tool. How have they managed that with Rial on the normal keyboards? There is. Just input multiple characters in the box that asks you for the character. roozbeh ___

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Put them in if you have the space. They'll prove to be necessary. It's > not XML only. It's everything that is considered *rich text*, a text > file that is supposed to mean more than the exact text. HTML, XML, TeX, > ... Sure, I'll put them. I wis

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:20, C Bobroff wrote: > Glad I asked before deleting! > I don't know about these things. Put them in if you have the space. They'll prove to be necessary. It's not XML only. It's everything that is considered *rich text*, a text file that is supposed to mean more than the e

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > We did that because we wanted to allow all the ASCII printable > characters. The real need was for things like XML, where some of these > characters are part of the syntax. The user will want to enter Persian > XML without ever switching to a Latin l

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:02, C Bobroff wrote: > Anyhow, I need some help. I'm just cheating by using Farsiweb's > "Persian experimental standard" keyboard and rearranging things. Please > tell me why you have included the following. Are they used for Persian? > U+0060 Grave Accent > U+003b Western

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Other people like Connie are > sacrificing their life to get our comments and translate it into > pages that the other 90% can understand. Speaking of which, I'm just today attempting to make a Persian keyboard for fingers which are used to typing Eng

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

> If someone insists of having the "Reh" shape, he should use the U+066x > code, while changing the glyph shape in the font. Yes, that makes sense. I forgot that the discussion was about the glyph itself and not the encoding. -Fariborz ___ PersianCompu

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 22:07, Skip Tavakkolian wrote: > BTW, what would the use of Reh instead of proper chars like U+066C or > U+066B do to sort orders or parsing of numeric vs. alphabetic sequences? If someone insists of having the "Reh" shape, he should use the U+066x code, while changing the gl

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

BTW, what would the use of Reh instead of proper chars like U+066C or U+066B do to sort orders or parsing of numeric vs. alphabetic sequences? For example, a function "persian_ispunct()" Ã la ANSI C "ispunct()" would then have to include Reh as a possible punctuation character. > On Sun, 2004-01-1

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Behnam wrote: > On 11-Jan-04, at 10:40 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > > On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 19:06, Behnam wrote: > > > >> of improving Farsi computing. > >^ > > > > Persian? Please? > > > > roozbeh > > Now, I like you to have the same "pushing" approach to

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On 11-Jan-04, at 10:40 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 19:06, Behnam wrote: of improving Farsi computing. ^ Persian? Please? roozbeh Now, I like you to have the same "pushing" approach towards the technicality of Persian computing requirements! But on the

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 23:43, Ali A. Khanban wrote: > > Mirrored is even better. It is more similar to the way I usually > > separate them in handwriting. Put the pen on a paper and then move it to > > the top and left, a natural number separator! > >

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 23:43, Ali A. Khanban wrote: > Mirrored is even better. It is more similar to the way I usually > separate them in handwriting. Put the pen on a paper and then move it to > the top and left, a natural number separator! I move it to top and right. I remember doing that in sc

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 22:10, Ali A. Khanban wrote: > I know it is kind of personal preferences, but I was wondering whether a > right-faced comma-shaped character is suitable for the thousand > separator. I read from right to left when I see such glyph. Because > numbers are written and read fro

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On 11-Jan-04, at 9:30 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: Very simple reason. They do not know English well enough to understand Windows. So they cannot manage their computer well. behdad I know you and Roozbeh and other people in this forum are in forefront of improving Farsi computing. My point is tha

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 18:16, Behnam wrote: > Sorry, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. [...] No problem. It just made me wonder that you're referring to something else. I checked it, and I hadn't said that. I'm not that much into commercial value of software... roozbeh

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

Roozbeh, Sorry, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. I had to be more careful on this and I wasn't. What I remember is from your interview that Connie posted in her message of congratulation on merger of FarsiWeb and Persian Computing. I'm afraid I didn't save a copy and I have to dig-in

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Behnam wrote: > On 11-Jan-04, at 7:17 AM, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > > > > > So, > > If I don't like to use U+066C (because of Web-Usability reasons), > > Is there an alternative for me? May I use the 'Reh' until most of > > users have > > standard systems? > > May I jump in?

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 17:35, Behnam wrote: > Roozbeh in an interview > mentioned that users in Iran don't even spend money for their softwares > because Iran didn't sign the copyright treaty. I can't recall saying that anywhere. Reference? > But I don't understand what stops users in Iran to us

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 15:47, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > I wonder even the Nesf2 has a bug about this U+066C. Nesf2 is deprecated, as far as the original author (Hooman Mehr), its porter to Unicode (Mehran Mehr) and the latest maintainers (FarsiWeb) are concerned. There are currently no plan to sup

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On 11-Jan-04, at 7:17 AM, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: So, If I don't like to use U+066C (because of Web-Usability reasons), Is there an alternative for me? May I use the 'Reh' until most of users have standard systems? May I jump in? I think the responsibility of moving users to standard system is o

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Thursday, January 08, 2004 7:00 PM Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:14, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > > But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' > > and 'minute'? > > (http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/afgDecSep.JPG) > > Depends on th

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Ali A. Khanban wrote: > Mirrored is even better. It is more similar to the way I usually > separate them in handwriting. Put the pen on a paper and then move it to > the top and left, a natural number separator! Don't ask me for > references, but I have seen many old people who

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Ali A. Khanban wrote: Roozbeh Pournader wrote: On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:14, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' and 'minute'? (http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/a

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Ali A. Khanban wrote: > Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > >On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:14, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > > > > > >>But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' > >>and 'minute'? > >>(http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/afgDecSep.JPG) > >

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

Roozbeh Pournader wrote: On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:14, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' and 'minute'? (http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/afgDecSep.JPG) Depends on the font. Compare with

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, C Bobroff wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > > Thanks to Connie who convinced me. > > It seems using of U+066C is the best option. > > Khahesh mikonam. > Now, I've got a good idea. > Make a model website demonstrating this (and other things) and use the n

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Reference? I can't find the exact one but here you go for now: --- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 03:38:59 -0800 Today's New Messages Please visit your group's message board if you would like to reply. http://groups

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 08:17, C Bobroff wrote: > I was told that earlier, it WAS possible on Netscape but they purposely > disabled the features that Weft makes use of. Reference? > Maybe they should put that > back. I don't know if the Linux people intentionally haven't implemented > whatever it

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > 1) It's a closed standard, so not everyone can implement it. Mozilla, > Netscape, and Linux users won't be able to use the feature. I was told that earlier, it WAS possible on Netscape but they purposely disabled the features that Weft makes use of.

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Fri, 2004-01-09 at 07:18, C Bobroff wrote: > Make a model website [...] and use [...] Weft [...] so everyone can > see how it's done. Not everyone can see Weft-enabled web pages: 1) It's a closed standard, so not everyone can implement it. Mozilla, Netscape, and Linux users won't be able to u

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > Thanks to Connie who convinced me. > It seems using of U+066C is the best option. Khahesh mikonam. Now, I've got a good idea. Make a model website demonstrating this (and other things) and use the new beta Farsiweb fonts and Weft them on the page so

Re: Using of U+066C as a number-separator

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 18:14, AmirBehzad Eslami wrote: > But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' > and 'minute'? > (http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/afgDecSep.JPG) Depends on the font. Compare with , for example

Using of U+066C as a number-separator

Thanks to Connie who convinced me. It seems using of U+066C is the best option.   But don't you think shape of U+066C is very similar to sign of 'foot' and 'minute'? (http://students.washington.edu/irina/persianword/afgDecSep.JPG)   Bedrood,Behzad   ___