Should I propose it?
No. It's already encoded.
Everything in the older JIS sets is already encoded.
If it's not U+301C then it's U+FF5E.
Rick
Gaspar Sinai scripsit:
So common language is screenshots... Ok. I updated the page.
Thank you.
Now the exact same file is viewed with two different viewers
at the bottom of this page:
http://www.yudit.org/security/
Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
it is
On 04-02-2002 11:15:25 John Cowan wrote:
Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
it is failing to set the overall directionality to RTL even
though the first character is strongly RTL. The fact that
some implementations are buggy is hardly an argument against
either the
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, John Cowan wrote:
Gaspar Sinai scripsit:
Now the exact same file is viewed with two different viewers
at the bottom of this page:
http://www.yudit.org/security/
Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
it is failing to set the overall
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
At 12:33 -0800 2002-02-03, Mark Davis wrote:
This has bitten more than a few people. For political reasons, having
to do with the synchronization of names to ISO 10646, the name fields
are empty for the control characters. That is because (at least
In the on-line UniHan database (http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html) I
see a field that I have never seen before:
- Other useful dictionary-like data
- [...]
- A phonetic grouping for the character
The phonetic grouping seems to be
On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 07:21 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
In the on-line UniHan database (http://www.unicode.org/charts/unihan.html)
I
see a field that I have never seen before:
- Other useful dictionary-like data
- [...]
- A
On 01/30/2002 05:09:13 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
In plain text, I think that plane 14 language tags could be used
It seems to me that such usage confuses the meaning of plain text. Use
of the plane 14 tagging characters to indicuate language would be markup
-- metadata that is separate from
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I also take the occasion to suggest a new field that could be very useful:
the frequency of usage of each character. This information may be derived
from good on-line sources. E.g., for Chinese, from Chi-Ho Tsai's research
On 01/31/2002 11:31:53 AM Rick McGowan wrote:
Does anyone out there have a keyboard re-mapping utility -- free or cheap
or even expensive! -- that works for Windows XP.
Rick,
The most flexible utility in the keyboard remapper category bar none is
Tavultesoft Keyman. The current version will
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, John H. Jenkins wrote:
Thomas, do you have a reference for U+9EBC (麼) and U+9EBD (麽) being
different? The only dictionary I have which contains both is the
(traditional) CiHai, it and it claims they're variants of each other.
Belated, but a little more on these two.
Gaspar Sinai...
Pursuing this kind of trivia hunt for bugs in an environment employing
Unicode is not any different than prusuing the same kind of bugs in any
other environment.
It is within the purview of the security community to find such bugs
before hackers find them.
But those bugs
Hello,
Before you call this thread a waste of time, and out of curiosity.. what
were theconsiderations put forth which determined the way the
bidi
algorithm is (uax#9). Ie. what were the pros and cons of a reversible
bidi?
Also, who make up the 'bidi community'? The users or the
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Database To Web Browser
Hi
I'm sure I'm missing something very simple here, I am trying to program
a refugee website in multiple languages.
The @CODEPAGE directive or Session.CodePage property must be set to 1251 for
cyrillic text to properly be sent from ASP code to the browser.
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/
- Original Message -
From: Magda Danish (Unicode) [EMAIL
Please comment. Send answers to [EMAIL PROTECTED] also.
The main usage would be terminals like xterm.
Werner
---BeginMessage---
Werner LEMBERG wrote on 2002-02-04 15:23 UTC:
One potential alternative is that, given Unicode 3.2 has just
introduced the notion of variation
I am not a member of that list, so best to answer here.
Variation selectors are ONLY allowed for specific characters and therefore
the proposal given here is not possible or sensible (there are not narrow
and wide varities of any of the characters currently being considered for
usage with
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mark Davis wrote:
Outlook Express, at least the version you are using, has a bug;
This is not a bug; it is specifically cited in the Bidirectional
Conformance section of Chapter 3 as one of the ways a higher-level
protocol can override the BIDI algorithm. I otherwise
Gaspar Sinai scripsit:
Hold on there! You admit that unicode alrgorithm is *really*
not reversable? I was just bluffing because I just saw that their
is no reverse algorithm published in the standard!
It can't be reversable, as my little English = CIBARA demonstration
showed. The only way
This thread is a waste of time.
Gaspar If unicode bi-di algorithm was reversable none of this would
Gaspar happen. Software developers, who are flash and blood people, would
Gaspar be able to do a clean room implementation of the algorithm and the
Gaspar reverse of it. The
No Real World document is going to make sense read both ways.
It will make sense one way, thus: "BARA-LA AW MALSI-AL mean
the Arabs and Islam respectively". The other order will make
no sense at all.
Good style might say to put in a line break so you know what's going on.
I don't know if that
I looks like both Mac/Linux/Window N6.2 and current Mozilla map that to
FFE3. Looks like IE on winXP do the same way.
We, mozilla i18n group, got the GB18030 mapping table from sun. B Yuan,
any comment?
Michael Everson wrote:
At 11:23 -0800 2002-02-01, Deborah Goldsmith wrote:
There is
Gaspar wrote:
The BIDI algorithm is not reversible, and could not be made reversible
without eliminating features that are important to the bidi community.
This was considered at the time the bidi algorithm was developed.
Hold on there! You admit that unicode alrgorithm is *really*
not
Frank and Deborah,
After I saw the e-mail from Deborah, I asked our Beijing office to
contact the CESI. The follow is the information we got:
--
Have contacted with CESI. It is really a glyph bug. They have fixed it,
On Mon, 4 Feb 2002, Mark Leisher wrote:
[...cut some stuff to save room...]
I don't understand your reasoning. Applying the bidi algorithm or a
higher-level protocol does not change the backing store. Applying the bidi
algorithm is essentially a one-way transformation, but the original
From: Gaspar Sinai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If the standard wants me to confuse the user, I would
rather dump the standard than comply.
Well, don't let the door hit you in the a** on the way out?
Te users will be less confused than you realize -- only people who walk in
with agendas see the flaws
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 03:48:48PM -0800, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
Variation selectors are ONLY allowed for specific characters and therefore
the proposal given here is not possible or sensible (there are not narrow
and wide varities of any of the characters currently being considered
28 matches
Mail list logo
