In a message dated 2001-01-31 12:19:33 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The section "Dangers of Incomplete Support" in section 13.7 seems to me
> to be far too strongly worded; it should be weakened or removed
> altogether.
>
> In particular, there is no reason why sequen
There seems to be a lot of crossover between the Qalam and Unicode lists
today.
> Forward Header_
> Subject:Character encoding systems for Arabic Web pages ?
> Author: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2001-01-31 6:35 PM
>
>
> Dear Arabist's,
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 11:18:37AM -0800, John Cowan wrote:
> I propose that the distinction between illegal and irregular UTF-8
> code sequences (D36bc) be eliminated. Since there are no code points
> between U+D7FF and U+E000 (the apparently intervening code points
> are UTF-16 code units, but
Sure enough. And I'm certainly never going to criticize someone for
treating it as a script until it is proven otherwise - including for the
purposes of Unicode. But one has to admit that one excellent piece of
evidence that a script is a script is the existence of multiple texts, and
that in th
The section "Dangers of Incomplete Support" in section 13.7 seems to me
to be far too strongly worded; it should be weakened or removed
altogether.
In particular, there is no reason why sequences of tag characters
not beginning with LANGUAGE TAG or CANCEL TAG cannot be used
for various purposes b
I propose that the distinction between illegal and irregular UTF-8
code sequences (D36bc) be eliminated. Since there are no code points
between U+D7FF and U+E000 (the apparently intervening code points
are UTF-16 code units, but not Unicode code points)
the corresponding UTF-8 code sequences shou
The 2nd paragraph in the revision of 7.5 appears to be a remnant.
--
There is / one art || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- P
Ar 08:21 -0800 2001-01-31, scríobh P. T. Rourke:
>Thanks, but if you go back and read my original message, you'll find the
>following sentences that continue from the point quoted by Mr. Everson:
>
>> Other than the Phaistos Disk "script," which may not
>> be a script at all (it seems odd that the
The Phaistos disk is either a sample of writing or it is a board game. But
as a board game it doesn't look very interesting.
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Mob +353 86 807 9169 ** Fax +353 1 478
John O'Conner wrote:
> Is this an error or intentional change? I noticed that all other
> "SCRIPT CAPITAL *" character values are in the "Lu" category.
> However, this particular character has changed to "So" in the 3.0,
> 3.0.1, and 3.1 db. Why? Why not the other SCRIPT CAPITAL * char
> val
On Wednesday, January 31, 2001, at 08:21 AM, P. T. Rourke wrote:
> Thanks, but if you go back and read my original message, you'll find the
> following sentences that continue from the point quoted by Mr. Everson:
>
>> Other than the Phaistos Disk "script," which may not
>> be a script at all (i
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 08:10:44 -0800, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
> In the chapter on Tibetan in Daniels and Bright's The world's writing
> systems (page 434) about prescript symbols: "There are six radicals that
> never occur with a prescript: wa, ra, la, ha, and 'a chung." Does anyone
> know wh
Is this an error or intentional change? I noticed that all other "SCRIPT
CAPITAL *" character values are in the "Lu" category. However, this
particular character has changed to "So" in the 3.0, 3.0.1, and 3.1 db.
Why? Why not the other SCRIPT CAPITAL * char values too?
2118;SCRIPT CAPITAL P;So;0;
Thanks, but if you go back and read my original message, you'll find the
following sentences that continue from the point quoted by Mr. Everson:
> Other than the Phaistos Disk "script," which may not
> be a script at all (it seems odd that there would be a
> script in as heavily studied a locatio
Wednesday, Januaary 31, 2001
In the chapter on Tibetan in Daniels and Bright's The world's writing
systems (page 434) about prescript symbols: "There are six radicals that
never occur with a prescript: wa, ra, la, ha, and 'a chung." Does anyone
know what the
On Wednesday, January 31, 2001, at 06:14 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> Ar 05:46 -0800 2001-01-31, scríobh P. T. Rourke:
>> I'm curious: what are the historical scripts that have been proposed to
>> Unicode that only exist in a handful of documents (note that I define
>> handful as 20 or less)?
>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Michael Everson wrote:
> Ar 13:23 -0800 2001-01-30, scríobh Thomas Chan:
> >I don't think that CSUR is conclusive proof that there wouldn't be a
> >deluge of demands for encoding fictional or constructed scripts if the
> >likes of Tengwar or Klingon were encoded.
>
> Well, I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> There are several features that make the TRON approach to multilingual
> processing unique. One is that the TRON character set is "limitlessly
> extensible," and thus it is capable of including all scripts that have ever
> been used, and even new scripts that have
In a message dated 2001-01-31 5:46:59 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> >Don't forget Deseret, which will, in fact, be part of Unicode 3.1.
>
> Version 2.1 of ConScript removes Deseret and points the user to the SMP.
> (John Cowan hasn't updated the mirror site yet.) This is
Ar 05:46 -0800 2001-01-31, scríobh P. T. Rourke:
>I'm curious: what are the historical scripts that have been proposed to
>Unicode that only exist in a handful of documents (note that I define
>handful as 20 or less)?
Proto-Sinaitic, for instance. Possibly some of the badly-known South
American s
I'm curious: what are the historical scripts that have been proposed to
Unicode that only exist in a handful of documents (note that I define
handful as 20 or less)? Other than the Phaistos Disk "script," which may
not be a script at all (it seems odd that there would be a script in as
heavily st
Ar 13:23 -0800 2001-01-30, scríobh Thomas Chan:
>I don't think that CSUR is conclusive proof that there wouldn't be a
>deluge of demands for encoding fictional or constructed scripts if the
>likes of Tengwar or Klingon were encoded.
Well, I think what David was saying is that there don't seem to
Ar 12:19 -0800 2001-01-30, scríobh David Starner:
>The ConScript registry (http://www.egt.ie/standards/csur/index.html) is a
>place where constructed/artifical scripts can be registered in a way
>that they can be publicially transfered (among those who recognize the
>encoding, of course.)
"By ag
Ar 14:54 -0800 2001-01-30, scríobh David Starner:
>On a calmer note, how many script submissions does Unicode and the
>ISO 10646 working group get now? How about from people outside Unicode
>and the working group? What about outside the standards bodies?
The occasional Southeast Asian script we
Ar 13:56 -0800 2001-01-30, scríobh John Jenkins:
>
>> Of those in the registry, I would guess only 8 (Tengwar, Cirth,
>> Engsvanyali, Shavian, Solresol, Visible Speech, Aiha, and Klingon) have
>> any claim to be added to Unicode. 78 columns, less than 624 characters to be
>> added.
>
>Don't forget
25 matches
Mail list logo
