Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> Not that simple, even. Some of the base forms of the 'backbone' of Fraktur
> capitals are topologically different from the Roman letters. For example, a
> true Fraktur A is not a triangle with raised base, but looks like a
> squarish U with the top part of the left le
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
>The problem is you can't make text/plain to go that way with Unicode
> because of Character Unification. So far you have to resort to markups
Heard of (dreaded) plane 14?
> and that is the reason I am objecting to Character Unification.
Which
At 06:15 PM 3/20/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>Asmus Freytag scripsit:
>
> > Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts from which the
> > Fraktur forms were evolved this analogy is seriously backwards. Antiqua is
> > not a simplification of Fraktur, but Fraktur capitals are embellish
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:26:16AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> Hello! Doumo!
>
> The problem is you can't make text/plain to go that way with Unicode
Actually, you can use Plane 14 characters.
> because of Character Unification. So far you have to resort to markups
> and that is the reason I
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Dan Kogai wrote:
> >How can you be so sure that "Most Japanese disagree"? Have you
> > actually taken a poll?
>
> Of course nobody has run an opinion poll among the general populace,
> and the results of such a poll would be irrelevant anyw
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 04:21 , Stefan Persson wrote:
> And if someone puts a Japanese page on a .cn address, or vice versa...?
>
> Wouldn't it be better to use
>
> - and -
>
> to distinguish between the two glyph displaying forms?
The problem is that you can't make the document mult
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:34:53PM -0500, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> >
> > > I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
> > > make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always rememb
Dan Kogai wrote:
> On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 03:55 , John H. Jenkins wrote:
> > There's an issue because Ohta-san (and a few others) hate Unicode with
> > a passion. ...
> > Most Japanese disagree with them, ...
>How can you be so sure that "Most Japanese disagree"? Have you
> act
At 11:55 -0700 2002-03-20, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 11:00 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
>
>>Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII
>>in fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either
>>the system font or the default browser font
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Curtis Clark wrote:
> 3. "Hangul" in Hangul (is it U+D55C U+AD74?)
No, it's U+D55C U+AE00. The vowel in 'gul' sounds like U+0268 (in IPA).
> 4. Is "Hanja" ever written in Hanja in modern Korea?
Yes although not often.
> Is it U+D55C U+C790 in Hangul?
Yup, you go
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:34:53PM -0500, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
>
> > I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
> > make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always remember that
> > they're coming from someone who put forth
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> > To me Unicode Consortium has already showed a big incompetence when it
> > introduced Surrogate Pair
What would it have done differently? Were you saying that it should
have beg
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 06:12:33AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> > HTML and XML at least has a salvation to this; lang= attribute in the
> > tag is exactly for that purpose. Unfortunately lang= attribute is not
> > very popular yet
>
> IE supports it,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> > Isn't this kind of attitude
> > that makes people like Ohta-san angry?
>
> I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
> make Unicode. When reading his complaints,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote:
> > Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer
> > versions ... ?
>
> Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where
> quotes should be, and it
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts from which the
> Fraktur forms were evolved this analogy is seriously backwards. Antiqua is
> not a simplification of Fraktur, but Fraktur capitals are embellished
> versions of handwritten forms based on Latin
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> Dan Kogai scripsit:
> >And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
> > is more appropriate?
>
> Traditional and Simplified characters are *not* unified in Unicode,
> (BTW, this should go on the list of Unicode Myths),
> so t
At 01:02 PM 3/20/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
>John H. Jenkins scripsit:
>
> > No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
>
>Good idea, but the wrong spirit. Fraktur is to Traditional Han as
>Antiqua is to Simplified Han.
Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscrip
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dan Kogai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 20 mars 2002 23:02
Subject: Re: Talk about Unicode Myths...
Dan Kogai:
>And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
> is more app
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Dan Kogai wrote:
>
> How can you be so sure that "Most Japanese disagree"? Have you
> actually taken a poll? I happen to be a Japanese and even I am not sure
> how much beloved or hated Unicode is here.
Point well taken. I'll amend my statement
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John H. Jenkins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 20 mars 2002 17:44
Subject: Re: Talk about Unicode Myths...
> Only slightly more seriously, I i
Dan> How can you be so sure that "Most Japanese disagree"? Have you
Dan> actually taken a poll? I happen to be a Japanese and even I am not
Dan> sure how much beloved or hated Unicode is here. Isn't this kind of
Dan> attitude that makes people like Ohta-san angry?
Having unsuc
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 06:12:33AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
> is more appropriate?
Not a problem, as Unicode doesn't unify them.
> HTML and XML at least has a salvation to this; lang= attribute in the
> tag is exactly f
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
> Isn't this kind of attitude
> that makes people like Ohta-san angry?
I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always remember that
they're coming from someone who
Dan Kogai scripsit:
>And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
> is more appropriate?
Traditional and Simplified characters are *not* unified in Unicode,
(BTW, this should go on the list of Unicode Myths),
so that would be up to the author, not the browser.
--
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote:
> Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer
> versions ... ?
Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where
quotes should be, and it was easier to change it at the browser level than
the
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 01:44 , Doug Ewell wrote:
> Only slightly more seriously, I imagine it would be possible to examine
> the top-level domain and:
>
> (1) if .cn, .tw, .hk, .sg, .mo --> display URL with Chinese glyphs
> (2) if .jp --> display URL with Japanese glyphs
> (3) otherwise p
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 03:55 , John H. Jenkins wrote:
> There's an issue because Ohta-san (and a few others) hate Unicode with
> a passion. This is an old argument which has been made by a number of
> Japanese for years, insulted that a bunch of American engineers presume
> to design a
Doug Ewell said:
> The supplementary planes
> have existed since 1993,
Not quite right. Technically, the approval and publication of Amendment
1 (UTF-16) to 10646:1993 took place in 1996. The formal proposal which
turned into Amendment 1 was submitted by Mark Davis to WG2 in February,
1994. It
David Hopwood said:
> > At 09:01 AM 3/19/02 -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > >TUS does not prevent anyone to put noncharacter code points in Unicode
> > >strings. As a matter of fact, p. 23 of TUS 3.0 reads "U+ is reserved
> > >for private program use as a sentinel or other signal."
> >
BTW, for those of you who don't know me, this was not a statement of my
own outlook, it's a summary of the outlook of a big group of objectors.
> -Original Message-
> From: Suzanne M. Topping
> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:42 PM
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Talk about U
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 11:00 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII in
> fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either the system
> font or the default browser font. It seems to me that an average Japanese
> user w
> -Original Message-
> From: Curtis Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII in
> fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either
> the system
> font or the default browser font. It seems to me that an
> avera
At 09:11 AM 3/20/02, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>This doesn't reflect, however, what actual Japanese users want (or, at
>least, would find acceptable). The correct algorithm is to display kanji
>with Japanese glyphs if at all possible.
>
>Again, the typographic tradition in Japan is to write kanji
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
> No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
Good idea, but the wrong spirit. Fraktur is to Traditional Han as
Antiqua is to Simplified Han.
--
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 09:44 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Only slightly more seriously, I imagine it would be possible to examine
> the top-level domain and:
>
> (1) if .cn, .tw, .hk, .sg, .mo --> display URL with Chinese glyphs
> (2) if .jp --> display URL with Japanese glyphs
> (3) othe
At 09:11 3/20/2002, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>This doesn't reflect, however, what actual Japanese users want (or, at
>least, would find acceptable). The correct algorithm is to display kanji
>with Japanese glyphs if at all possible.
>
>Again, the typographic tradition in Japan is to write kanji
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: den 20 mars 2002 02:47
Subject: OT, questions about Hanzi
> Maybe this is off-topic, but I figure this is the place where I could get
> the quickest answers. What are the code points to write thes
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 08:19 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> I am now developing a patch for Mozilla that causes it to display all
> URLs in Fraktur fonts only.
>
>
No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
==
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
> John H. Jenkins scripsit:
>
> > (His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
> > draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
> > civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
> > con
See below. The fun hasn't stopped yet!
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
- Original Message -
From: "Masataka Ohta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Elz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20,
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether
to
>> draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
>> civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
>> confronted with Chinese writing styles, ev
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
> (His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
> draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
> civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
> confronted with Chinese writing styles, even when being
Ah, Ohta-san. We can always count on him.
(His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
confronted with Chinese writing styles, even w
Hello all,
though Bill Kurmey wrote privately, I think this should be discussed
publicly; so I take the liberty to answer in Unicode list.
I had written:
> - When a notable fraction of your user community uses older browsers,
> particularly Netscape 4.7:
> - For characters contained in CP 1
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> I do not feel that this is an *encoding* issue at all. Nor is it even
> an issue for the Unicode Collation Algorithm to define such a usage.
Strictly speaking, this may be true. But the catch 22 of it is that Unicode
'rules' will prevent such characters from being defined
From: "Herman Ranes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My observation is that Opera6.0, MSIE6.0 and Mozilla0.9.8(Win)
> interpret not only Win-1252 -tagged 8-bit HTML as Win-1252, but that
> they interpret also US-ASCII and ISO-8859-1 -tagged 8-bit HTML as
> Win-1252.
It is highly doubtful that they are sup
My observation is that Opera6.0, MSIE6.0 and Mozilla0.9.8(Win)
interpret not only Win-1252 -tagged 8-bit HTML as Win-1252, but that
they interpret also US-ASCII and ISO-8859-1 -tagged 8-bit HTML as
Win-1252.
However, *earlier* versions of Mozilla *did* display US-ASCII /
ISO-8859-1 -tagged do
At 18:03 -0500 2002-03-19, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
>[Alain] Writing it in text is not a problem if context is known.
>Impressionists in the XIXth Century, for example, already signed
>their paintings with a format such as « Claude Monet 89 »(we know it
>was 1889).
I think it exceptionally bad
The "experts" are out in force over on the Internationalized Domain Name
(IDN) mailing list. Here's Mr. RFC 1815 with his thoughts on Unicode.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
- Original Message -
From: "Masataka Ohta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March
50 matches
Mail list logo
