In the early 1990s I did a small piece of research on devising a method of
inputting text in the Esperanto language into a PC using an ordinary English
keyboard.
Some aspects of that research now appear to be relevant to the present
discussion of implementing unicode 3.1 on older computer
Then why is ICU mapping UTF-16 to UTF16_PlatformEndian and not
UTF16_BigEndian?
ICU does not do Unicode-signature or other encoding detection
as part of a converter. When you get text from some protocol,
you need to instantiate a converter according to what you
know about the
Hi,
Sorry to bother you all like this but I have this problem and I was
wondering if any of you know how to store XML files into SQL database so
that you can use as many languages as possible and also that those files are
usable inside ASP pages but without using encoding UTF-8 or is that even
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 06:24:47PM -0700, Markus Scherer wrote:
On the other hand, if you get a file from your platform and
it is in 16-bit Unicode, then you would appreciate the
convenience of the auto-endian alias.
But nothing should be spitting out platform-endian UTF-16! In the
Edward Cherlin wrote
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
But they did
quote from the Science Museum
"Analytical Engine Mill by Henry Prevost Babbage, 1910.
Babbage bequeathed his
Michael Everson wrote:
(Mayan is on the Roadmap to Plane One, but it doesn't look as
though there's been any detailed proposal yet.)
I believe that structurally it will work as well as Egyptian. But No
one has weighed in on my proposal for Egyptian so far, except for
people complaining about
UTF-8 is what you need to use for the Session.CodePage on the ASP side, and
a Unicode text field (NTEXT, NCHAR, NVARCHAR) would have to be used on the
MS SQL Server side. If you do this, then you should be able to get what you
want.
What is the specific reason that you would not want to use
Emil:
where
is the right-to-left space?
Same place as the left-to-right space. The space character picks up its
directionality from the surrounding text. (UAX#9
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr9/ has all the gory details if
you're interested.)
- Peter
Dear Emil Hersak,
I have just tested what Mr. John Hudson said,
Texted typed in Arabic Windows is displayed and printed correctly
in the non-Arabic Windows 98, but I was not able to change the Font Size.
Liwal
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well this is just a
on 4/20/01 6:39 AM, James Kass at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nobody has complained about the proposed architecture...
maybe it's because there's nothing to complain about.
I am not an Egyptologist, but as one involved in Ancient Near Eastern
studies (electronic projects include Initiative
Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
this day.
Well, I've seen *something* in the (British) Science Museum, but whether
it's complete, or works, I can't remember.
It might be truer to say
From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Which, to the extent which this is true (show me how you plan to
handle The Art of Computer Programming or the Dragon book, for
example), is equally true of upper case. Capitalizing sentences is
redundant with punctuation, and any additional
Dean A. Snyder wrote of rumbles in the Egyptological community
about the architecture of the Egyptian hieroglyphic proposal.
It would be interesting to know what the objections are,
but premature?
The proposal was written in 1999 and no one has offered
a different proposal, (AFAIK).
Yves, we are thinking about a general API for encoding detection that could initially
just check for BOM/Unicode signatures. I believe we have a feature request for this
already. Mark and I just brainstormed about what we may want an API look like.
The reason for doing what ICU is doing
At 10:20 -0400 2001-04-20, Dean A. Snyder wrote:
I believe that somebody HAS indeed "complained about the proposed
architecture" for Hieroglyphic in Unicode. I have been told that there was
an organized protest from within the Egyptological community against the
proposal a few years ago as being
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Errr - my point is:
"If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
What's yours?
Depends on who you're talking to and what you
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
Errr - my point is:
"If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
What's yours?
Depends on who you're talking to and what
At 10:20 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Dean A. Snyder wrote:
... the Unicode
Consortium should only entertain proposals to the standard after ACTIVELY
seeking the input from the relevant (scholarly) communities - something
which the ICE and UFU projects are doing for two cuneiform script systems.
And, if it
on 4/20/01 1:34 PM, Michael Everson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:20 -0400 2001-04-20, Dean A. Snyder wrote:
They only complained about the repertoire being unready.
Yes, to the tune of only 30% ready - that's the figure I recall from the
Chicago meeting. That seems to me like saying
Perhaps I should have gone with C, but the point was your
English-processing English-commented Perl programs are in ASCII. You
sent out an ASCII email. If you were (?) English
Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first
users who have the most interest vested in
the encoding are the scholars themselves (and they are saying the state of
the art prevents a useable encoding at the time)
I don't think it's all scholars who have objected to the Egyptian
proposal. But this is a case where there appears to be no
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:43:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first set that covers all the required
characters. (But 8859-1 is enough for everyday use.)
all your files would
At 03:50 PM 4/20/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I say 0 and 1 are adequate. I find this discussion rather pointless
since we all already know that ASCII is adequate if the given premise
is that ASCII is adequate. I don't see what's there to discuss.
We are just trying to see if tautologies
Also, you're part of the problem. "8859-1 is enough for everyday use."
Yes, and rather proud of it, in the same way as opposition is
the way to healthy democracy. Also, we are not the guilty ones,
we use what's given to us, I would say the guilty ones are the
"adequate" designers of the
24 matches
Mail list logo
