On Tue, 29 May 2001, David Gallardo wrote:
Please excuse the unintended querulousness, but isn't the Greenwich meridian
merely the reification of this bias?
[snip]
Nonetheless, and more to my point, the terms Near East and Far East
were in use long before this.
There are also terms like
Mr. Thomas Chan is right, on the Internet if one search with word
Asian it most of the time lead to CJK Sites.
Liwal
- Original Message - Folks, this discussion was about how to
label a control in a dialog box, as
in the attached image. You can't use a label like that.
It may have
In a message dated 2001-05-29 4:28:09 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The goal is to improve an existing program I wrote which automatically
detects the encoding form of Cyrillic text (8-bit character sets such as
DOS
CP 866, Windows CP 1251, or KOI-8, as well as UTF-8)
In a message dated 2001-05-29 12:42:38 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How long is the past? I remember reading about these surrogates the
first
time I put my hands on a draft copy of ISO 10646. It was nearly six years
ago.
Surrogate range was defined there but no
In a message dated 2001-05-29 11:20:48 Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The point is that while the UTC did not endorse this proposal as
of May 23, 2001, the pressure to create a UTF-8S is rising, and there
is no guarantee that the UTC will not sway to such support in
TERM ASIAIN COMPUTER INTERNET
(RECOMMENDATIONS UNICODE LIST "MAY 2001")
So far the recomendations are, that "Asian Text
Fonts" can be called:
-Han Fonts or Hanzi Fonts
-"East Asian
Unified" Fonts
-"East Asian"
Fonts
Script Can be classified as:
-languages
which Han ideographs
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Shouldn't they be Left-to-right? Does any Right-to-Left Braille
exist anywhere in the world?
I doubt it. But if Marco is correct that Hebrew braille is
left-to-right, there could conceivably be some exemplary
printed materials in Hebrew, with braille examples,
Jim Mason, director of the Rosetta project, has replied to a couple of
Unicode List messages.
But he wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the Unicode Digest Mode) rather
to [EMAIL PROTECTED].
This was my fault to mislead Jim there: in a private message, I referred him
to the YahooGroops archive, calling
On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:31:19AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2001-05-29 4:28:09 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The goal is to improve an existing program I wrote which automatically
detects the encoding form of Cyrillic text (8-bit character
I think they are used in Western Media, but not
in Asian Media!
Liwal
- Original Message -
From: David Gallardo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nonetheless, and more to my point, the terms Near East and Far East
were in use long before this.
Nonetheless, and more to my point, the terms Near East and Far East
were in use long before this.
I think they are used in Western Media, but not
in Asian Media!
Liwal
I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:
Tendo wrote:
I thought the radical was tongue, not hook.
Nope, it is neither tongue nor hook. The radical of
U+4E82 is number 5 (second).
[...]
BTW, the Unicode radical of U+4E59 is derived from [...]
the radical of the Kang Xi dictionary:
Sorry to reply to
On 05/30/2001 01:31:17 AM Doug Ewell wrote:
I hate to say it, but this is really damaging my faith in the
standardization
process...
I don't (and shouldn't) have the ability to pressure the UTC to approve a
new
encoding form to make up for my inability to conform to the existing ones,
and
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
I doubt it. But if Marco is correct that Hebrew braille is
left-to-right, there could conceivably be some exemplary
printed materials in Hebrew, with braille examples, [...]
There is a very nice book about how braille
Wednesday, May 30, 2001
Attached is a note I wrote in September 1993 about the ratio of characters
to glyphs in several Indic scripts. Much has changed on the Unicode
front since then, but I think the need for rendering software to decide
which of many
You may be interested by Creating and supporting OpenType fonts for Indic
scripts and Creating and supporting OpenType fonts for Arabic scripts, both
available at http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tt/tt.htm.
To give a little bit of context, the OpenType architecture separates shaping in
two
Doug Ewell wrote:
The proponents of UTF-8S are
vigorously and actively campaigning for their proposal. In
standardization committees, proposals that have committed, active
proponents who can aim for the long haul, often have a way of getting
adopted in one form or another, unless
Hi Folks,
Over the last few days, this email thread has generated many interesting
discussions on the proposal of UTF-8s. At the same time some speculations
have been generated on why Oracle is asking for this encoding form. I hope
to clarify some of these misinformation in this email.
In
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
According to the proposal, UTF-8S and UTF-32S would not have the same
status: they wouldn't be for interchange; they'd just be for
representation
internal to a given system, like UTF-EBCDIC (which, I think I
heard, has
not actually
On Wed, 30 May 2001, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
Thank you for interesting piece of information.
Wednesday, May 30, 2001
Attached is a note I wrote in September 1993 about the ratio of characters
to glyphs in several Indic scripts. Much has changed
Simon,
Thanks
for the information. I am very glad that Oracle will be supporting these
characters sets properly. I look forward to using 9i. Since Oracle
will transform the Unicode from one encoding to another at the API layer, I
don't see why users can not retrieve the data in a single
Simon,
Would you care to answer (officially) why exactly Oracle needs for anything
to be done here? Per the spec, it is not illegal for a process to interpret
5/6-byte supplementary characters; it is only illegal to emit them. It seems
that Oracle and everyone else is well covered with the
At 12:02 AM 5/29/01 -0700, James Williams wrote:
Can someone please help me understand whether support for double byte is the
same as being Unicode compliant. Any elaboration would be greatly
appreciated. If for instance, being Unicode compliant has any additional
value/benefits, etc... I'd like
Simon,
Would you care to answer (officially) why exactly Oracle needs for anything
to be done here? Per the spec, it is not illegal for a process to interpret
5/6-byte supplementary characters; it is only illegal to emit them. It seems
that Oracle and everyone else is well covered with the
24 matches
Mail list logo