Sorry to spam the whole list but does anyone know if 'e' superscript, as a
individual character exists within Unicode i.e. 'º' but with the letter 'e'.
If so where within Unicode is it located - it has been suggested to me that
the Dutch use this. Although I'm not sure if that is correct.
Also
At 12:16 +0100 2001-10-05, Chapman Sam wrote:
Sorry to spam the whole list but does anyone know if 'e' superscript, as a
individual character exists within Unicode i.e. 'º' but with the letter 'e'.
One is being proposed for Finno-Ugric Phonetic Alphabet. But it won't
have an underscore.
--
I've received data encoded in ISO 2022-JP that I am unable to figure
out how to map to Unicode. The characters in question do not appear in
the old JIS0208.TXT, and I can't find them in UniHan.txt either
(unless I am misinterpreting it).
These characters are the problem:
$Bz(B $B|(B
Of course ligation control is font-specific. That is why the ZWJ solution
is
elegant -- it falls back gracefully to the two (or three...) unligated
glyphs
in the event the ligature is unavailable in the font. This is still
better
than displaying a black box, which is how William Overington's
On 5 Oct 2001, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
I've received data encoded in ISO 2022-JP that I am unable to figure
out how to map to Unicode. The characters in question do not appear in
the old JIS0208.TXT, and I can't find them in UniHan.txt either
These characters are the problem:
(7A22,
At 08:50 10/5/2001, William Overington wrote:
I feel that as their usefulness was such that
ligatured characters could be cast in some fonts in metal type right up
until the end of the mainstream use of metal type, then it is reasonable
that the use of such ligatured characters could be
At 4:50 PM +0100 10/5/01, William Overington wrote:
Of course ligation control is font-specific. That is why the ZWJ solution
However, I feel that the availability of ligatured characters in a font at a
specific official Unicode code point would be useful for the specific use of
a person to be
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Designation changed twice in Unicode, once to
designate the surrogates, and once to designate
the 32 characters on the BMP as non-characters.
Designation also changed between Unicode 1.1 and 2.0 to move around the Private-Use
and Hangul blocks, and to add the Plane-16/17
The definition of UTF-32 (and the modifications to UTF-8 for Unicode
3.1) make it clear that conformant processes shall not generate
irregular sequences. However, they do not (and perhaps they
shouldn't) indicate what a process should do when encountering an
irregular sequence, and I'm curious
Bernard Miller wrote:
I don't understand this, the arabic non characters
are supposed to REPRESENT the hidden non characters?
no, they are unrelated and additional.
markus
Markus Scherer asked:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Designation changed twice in Unicode, once to
designate the surrogates, and once to designate
the 32 characters on the BMP as non-characters.
Designation also changed between Unicode 1.1 and 2.0 to move
around the Private-Use and Hangul
Indeed they would appear as a black box or something similar in most fonts.
However, I feel that the availability of ligatured characters in a font at a
specific official Unicode code point would be useful for the specific use of
a person to be able to encode the ligature information directly,
William Overington continued:
However, I feel that the availability of ligatured characters in a font at a
specific official Unicode code point would be useful for the specific use of
a person to be able to encode the ligature information directly, so that he
or she may transcribe the
- Original Message -
From: Chapman Sam [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Unicode List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 5 oktober 2001 13:16
Subject: Superscript 'e'
Sorry to spam the whole list but does anyone know if 'e' superscript, as a
individual character exists within Unicode i.e. 'º' but with
14 matches
Mail list logo
