From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 09/11/2003 14:55, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
And canonical normalization _guarantees_ to preserve *only* starter
sequences (defective or not), but not necessarily combining character
sequences (defective or not), and that's where care must be taken
At 09:01 PM 11/9/2003, Chris Jacobs wrote:
I tried to make Open Type tables like that for the Zigan Trad font, but I
did not get it working.
How do you do the n g - ng ligature?
You cannot just use liga because n g h should become n gh, not ng h, and
there will not yet be much support for clig.
Hi Doug, All,
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..] Second, disunifying y
would cause untold mapping nightmares. [..]
Not exactly nightmares, but the Tamil case does
cause some mapping discomfort.
About three out of five 7bit/8bit encodings for Tamil
have these two Unicode codepoints
There's still a problem between these "clarified"
definitions, introduced by D14:
"a combining character is a graphic character" means it must be
a graphic character, and this excludes character category "Cf".
"Combining characters consist of all characters with the
General Category values
From: Simon Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, Frank also had other proposals which included the IBM 3270
characters I think you were referring to (poke around the directory at
http://www.funet.fi/pub/kermit/ucsterminal/)..
I am not proposing to encode all terminal function indicators in Unicode.
Hi Philippe!
When dealing with protocol specifications, there's often a need for
characters like these, too, since hex byte pictures are
unambiguous. I have
a DEC dumb terminal around here somewhere which also uses them when
debugging control characters.
I suppose you could argue it's
Well, obviously I support this totally, since I suggested the same thing
myself on this list earlier this year (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unicode/message/20789).
I am 100% in favor of adding hex digits to Unicode. I speak as a
programmer, and as a designer of software architecture.
BTW, Frank also had other proposals which included the IBM 3270
characters I think you were referring to (poke around the
directory at
http://www.funet.fi/pub/kermit/ucsterminal/)..
I am not proposing to encode all terminal function indicators
in Unicode.
Else it would mean that
At 09:19 + 2003-11-10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
Well, obviously I support this totally, since I suggested the same
thing myself on this list earlier this year (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unicode/message/20789).
I am 100% in favor of adding hex digits to Unicode. I speak as a
programmer,
At 17:47 -0800 2003-11-09, Curtis Clark wrote:
What determines whether a script is a cipher of another?
Whim?
Theban was rejected because Books of Shadows are usually handwritten
and private and there is no requirement to exchange data. As a
cipher, it is easy to determine when Latin
At 09:19 + 2003-11-10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
Well, obviously I support this totally, since I suggested the same
thing myself on this list earlier this year (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unicode/message/20789).
And Ken Whistler responded to this then:
From: Peter Jacobi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Tamil 0BB3 and 0BD7
Hi Doug, All,
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..] Second, disunifying y
would cause untold mapping nightmares. [..]
Not exactly nightmares, but
Well, obviously I support this totally, since I suggested the same
thing myself on this list earlier this year (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unicode/message/20789).
I am 100% in favor of adding hex digits to Unicode. I speak as a
programmer, and as a designer of software
-Original Message-
From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 9:56 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
There are oceans of data out there with ABCDEF used already. What do
you propose to do about that?
Nothing. This is not
My question went unanswered, so I'll ask it again - do I get a vote?
How does one go about registering support for a proposal? I consider
myself a relevant interested party, someone who belives that hex
should collate before hex 1 in a natural sort. Is it possible to
add support to
From: Simon Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, Frank also had other proposals which included the IBM 3270
characters I think you were referring to (poke around the
directory at
http://www.funet.fi/pub/kermit/ucsterminal/)..
I am not proposing to encode all terminal function indicators
Peter Kirk wrote:
But does the Khmer script follow this rule? Please bear in mind that I
know nothing about this script. But in TUS v4.0 10.4 p.281 I read:
Ordering of Syllable Components. The standard order of components in
an orthographic syllable as expressed in BNF is
B {R | C} {S
Subject: Re: Tamil 0BB3 and 0BD7
The Indic lenght marks should be seen as encoding mistakes.
Ideally, none of them should have been encoded, since they do
not have an independent usage. Compare Khmer, which does not
have decompositions for its glyph composite dependent vowels
(one thing that's
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the proposals either to have the six hexalphadigits or the
sixteen
hexdigits or the 256 bytedigits are doomed to have about as much usage
as the equally well-intentioned Unicode LS and PS.
The bad thing about the proposed 6 HEX digits, is that it assumes that
From: Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How does one go about registering support for a proposal? I consider
myself a relevant interested party, someone who belives that hex
should collate before hex 1 in a natural sort. Is it possible to
add support to a proposal, or do I just have to
From: Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My question went unanswered, so I'll ask it again - do I get a vote?
I think that you get a right to vote when you pay your subscription to be a
full member of the UTC (or the UTC votes to invite you to become a member,
as it feels your liaison membership
From: Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Indic lenght marks should be seen as encoding mistakes.
Could they be documented officially as deprecated in favor of another
character, by assigning them a compatibility decomposition mapping (I mean
with compat in the UCD)?
At this point, I'm a bit puzzled about the circumstances in which an
alphabet is a cipher of another, and when it isn't. In an offlist
conversation, you, I, and others seemed to arrive at the consensus that
the Theban magickal script was a cipher of Latin. And many years ago,
you raised
At 10:23 + 2003-11-10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
There are oceans of data out there with ABCDEF used already. What do
you propose to do about that?
Nothing. This is not my problem, and I find it irrelevant.
That attitude is why it might be good that you don't have a vote.
Even I, who have
Quoting Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
At 17:47 -0800 2003-11-09, Curtis Clark wrote:
What determines whether a script is a cipher of another?
Whim?
Theban was rejected because Books of Shadows are usually handwritten
and private and there is no requirement to exchange data.
This
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
My question went unanswered, so I'll ask it again - do I get a vote?
Not from me anyway. And I'm not too worried, this kind of proposal has
been rejected on very good grounds before... So I would guess the
proposal
has zero chance/risk of being accepted.
myself a
On 09/11/2003 22:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 09/11/2003 14:55, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
And canonical normalization _guarantees_ to preserve *only* starter
sequences (defective or not), but not necessarily combining character
sequences (defective or
From: Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Indic lenght marks should be seen as encoding mistakes.
Could they be documented officially as deprecated in favor of another
character, by assigning them a compatibility decomposition
mapping (I mean with compat in the UCD)?
By now you
On 09/11/2003 19:18, John Hudson wrote:
...
Any sign can be made a cipher by changing the signified. Writing
systems are collections of conventional signs, which means that there
is conventional agreement as to the signified. For example, the
signifier 'A' is conventionally agreed by users of
At 10:42 + 2003-11-10, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
My question went unanswered, so I'll ask it again - do I get a vote?
How does one go about registering support for a proposal? I consider
myself a relevant interested party, someone who belives that hex
should collate before hex 1 in a
On 10/11/2003 03:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this point, I'm a bit puzzled about the circumstances in which an
alphabet is a cipher of another, and when it isn't. In an offlist
conversation, you, I, and others seemed to arrive at the consensus that
the Theban magickal script was a cipher
On 10/11/2003 01:51, Michael Everson wrote:
At 17:47 -0800 2003-11-09, Curtis Clark wrote:
What determines whether a script is a cipher of another?
Whim?
Theban was rejected because Books of Shadows are usually handwritten
and private and there is no requirement to exchange data. As a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Indic lenght marks should be seen as encoding mistakes.
Ideally, none of them should have been encoded, since they do
not have an independent usage. [...]
But in the case of Tamil, the non-existance of U+0BD7 wouldn't
remove the disparity with written Tamil, it
Microsoft Windows XP does a pretty good job of natural sort order. For
example a file called File99 will sort just before File100.
File99A will slot between them, but File992 will go after them. It's
all pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
To sort File1 immediately after File could
At 11:47 + 2003-11-10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Theban was rejected because Books of Shadows are usually handwritten
and private and there is no requirement to exchange data.
This is increasingly untrue. This is not to say that the increase in
willingness to allow Books of Shadows and
At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in
Latin script with a one to one mapping. Proposals are in preparation
for extra Hebrew characters used by particular communities for
western languages which are more commonly written in
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But when does an unconventional use become a new convention? If a
particular community chooses to write English (for example) using e.g.
Cyrillic or Hebrew characters, with a one to one mapping, are they using
a cipher or are they transliterating? Does it depend on how
From: Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Kent Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Indic lenght marks should be seen as encoding mistakes.
Could they be documented officially as deprecated in favor of another
character, by assigning them a compatibility decomposition
mapping (I mean
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This does not affect my argument. A combining character sequence, as
defined, does not perfectly fit your definition an unordered set of
sequences of characters having the same combining class. But it is
preserved under canonical normalisation. Well, perhaps
From: Jill Ramonsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microsoft Windows XP does a pretty good job of natural sort order. For
example a file called File99 will sort just before File100.
File99A will slot between them, but File992 will go after them. It's
all pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
To
Peter Jacobi wrote:
U+0B95 U+0BC6 U+0BB3 and
U+0B95 U+0BCC
are indistinguishable in written Tamil.
Then there is either a true ambiguity (perhaps resolvable
by context), or one or the other is a spelling mistake (and
just an apparent ambiguity). Compare again Khmer, where
the register shift
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
example a file called File99 will sort just before File100.
File99A will slot between them, but File992 will go after
them. It's all pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
Really!? Would you not expect 99A to come (much) after 99?!
After all, 99A (in hexadecimal) is
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
example a file called File99 will sort just before File100.
File99A will slot between them, but File992 will go after
them. It's all pretty much exactly what you'd expect.
Really!? Would you not expect 99A to come (much) after 99?!
After all, 99A (in hexadecimal) is
Philippe Verdy wrote:
The decompositions cannot be changed.
Is it true for compatibility decomposition? When I look at the Unicode
stability policy, I thought it only meant the canonical mappings, or
the
fact that a canonical mapping cannot be changed to a compatibility
mapping or the
After all, 99A (in hexadecimal) is greater than 99 (hexadecimal).
Oops. I missed the 2 key. E.g:
After all, 99A (in hexadecimal) is greater than 992 (hexadecimal).
Sorry (both about missing the 2 and that your argument doesn't
work)
/kent k
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
That would not describe the current use Theban (when it offers no real
secrecy, and when most occultists are aware of modern computer-based
encryption).
The intention of secrecy is not the same thing, obviously, as actual
secrecy, as too many have found out to
Quoting John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
That would not describe the current use Theban (when it offers no real
secrecy, and when most occultists are aware of modern computer-based
encryption).
The intention of secrecy is not the same thing, obviously, as
Jill Ramonsky posted:
However, File99A (where A is a hex digit) should
sort (much) after both File99A (where A is a letter) and File100.
The only way you can tell File99(letter)A apart from File99(digit)A
is by giving the two As different codepoints.
And the only way you can tell 7 decimal from
This is unpleasant; I wish I had taken a closer look at the structure for Khmer
before it went in, because it is very problematic. At this point the UTC will
have to take up this topic and figure out what to do.
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original
I agree -- this is pointless. The UTC has discussed this before, and I don't
think there is any chance that the UTC would add either:
(a) made-up hexadecimal digits that differ in shape from A-F, or
(b) glyphic clones of A-F that were hexadecimal digits.
Mark
__
Some issues with TR14:
1) The version linked to from
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/ is an old version,
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/tr14-13.html.
2) I note from the latest version of TR14
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/) and the line breaking data
Peter Jacobi peter underscore jacobi at gmx dot net wrote:
So in effect, Unicode handling of this case, may actually
change Tamil use - I've already seen proposals to
a script reform dis-unifying the glyphs.
Let's make sure we don't get started down that path. There is a Tamil
script reform
Hello,
2003-11-09T21:41:25Z Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 19:30 +0100 2003-11-09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
So my question is, once again: would a font that would display pointed Latin
glyphs from Tifinagh script code points really break the Unicode model?
Yes, Philippe. It is the
Sorry, but I have to correct you. You state below that "[my] argument
doesn't work". This is slightly confusing because I haven't proposed
any arguments, beyond that I support the inclusion into Unicode of hex
digits which are distinct from the letters A to Z.
I can only assume you are
I am not the one who has not thought it through. There _is_ no
difference between decimal 7 and hex 7. They are the same digit. File777
sorts before File999 in _ALL_ radices.
Jill
-Original Message-
From: Jim Allan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 3:29 PM
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
- the attachment symbol (trombonne in French, Brobriefklammer in
German, I don't know the term in English),
Paper clip.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Hi Doug, All,
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in response to me:
So in effect, Unicode handling of this case, may actually
change Tamil use - I've already seen proposals to
a script reform dis-unifying the glyphs.
Let's make sure we don't get started down that path. There is a Tamil
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Is it true for compatibility decomposition? When I look at the Unicode
stability policy, I thought it only meant the canonical mappings, or
Philippe, I wish you were right about this so that at least we could
reinstate
Alexander Savenkov scripsit:
I'm not sure I'm not taking your words out of the context, Michael.
You are. Michael is complaining not about transliteration as such,
but about instant transliteration by font substitution.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ccil.org/~cowan
At 17:36 +0300 2003-11-10, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
The Wrong Thing To Do can be seen everywhere in the newspapers when
the names and some other words originally written in Cyrillic and
other scripts are letter-by-letter (mapped?) transliterated to the
resulting script.
That's transliteration,
Jill Ramonsky Jill dot Ramonsky at aculab dot com wrote:
I am not the one who has not thought it through. There _is_ no
difference between decimal 7 and hex 7. They are the same digit.
File777 sorts before File999 in _ALL_ radices.
No, what Jim said was:
And the only way you can tell 7
On 10/11/2003 04:50, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in Latin
script with a one to one mapping. Proposals are in preparation for
extra Hebrew characters used by particular communities for western
On 10/11/2003 05:29, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I did not say the opposite (that normalization could change semantics).
But normalization does not work at the combining character sequence
level but at the starter sequence level, ...
No, it does not, in the same sense that word level processing does
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:57:51 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Here's a little table of the combining classes, showing the value, the
number of characters in the class, and a handy name (typically the one
used in the Unicode Standard, or a CODE POINT NAME if there is only one;
sometimes of my own
At 09:13 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 10/11/2003 04:50, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in
Latin script with a one to one mapping. Proposals are in
preparation for extra Hebrew characters
on 2003-11-10 04:17 Michael Everson wrote:
It still remains the case that Theban orthography is basically
English, that is, it is Latin with funny glyphs.
Why isn't Latin Serbian just Cyrillic Serbian with funny glyphs? I'm not
trying to be intentionally dense here; Theban English and Serbian
On 10/11/2003 09:09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
Time to publish a public review for change of category of ZWJ and ZWNJ from
Cf to Mn, so that they finally become acceptable within combining
sequences?
Maybe. Interesting that they are already treated as combining characters
for line breaking
At 06:36 AM 11/10/2003, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
Yes, Philippe. It is the same thing as mapping Cyrillic to ASCII
letters. It is a hack. It is to be avoided. It is the Wrong Thing To
Do.
I'm not sure I'm not taking your words out of the context, Michael.
The Wrong Thing To Do can be seen
On 10/11/2003 10:36, John Hudson wrote:
...
Well, Tifinagh is not a cipher and writing Tifinagh with a Latin
cipher is a bad idea. But things like bidi properties are only an
issue if you are employing a cipher at the glyph level. I've already
explained why I think ciphers, masquerading and
At 10:14 -0800 2003-11-10, Curtis Clark wrote:
Why isn't Latin Serbian just Cyrillic Serbian with funny glyphs?
Because Latin and Serbian are self-evidently different scripts.
I'm not trying to be intentionally dense here; Theban English and
Serbian are different in many ways. But are there
Jim Ramonsky posted:
I am not the one who has not thought it through. There _is_ no
difference between decimal 7 and hex 7. They are the same digit. File777
sorts before File999 in _ALL_ radices.
Exactly.
So mixed hex and mixed decimal will not sort or compare properly using a
natural sort
At 09:13 AM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
So, if Masonic Samaritan script texts (no intention of secrecy there, by
the way) should be encoded as a cipher of Latin and not with the Unicode
Samaritan script, does that imply that Azerbaijani Latin texts should be
encoded as a cipher or
On 10/11/2003 10:21, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:13 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 10/11/2003 04:50, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:04 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Languages formerly written in Cyrillic are now being written in
Latin script with a one to one mapping. Proposals
- Message d'origine -
Philippe Verdy a écrit :
I was concerned recently by some people who wanted to better write the
Tifinagh languages
Stricto sensu, they are no tifinagh languages, but languages (or dialects of
the Berber language) written with the tifinagh script.
(such as
Andrew C. West scripsit:
589 ? Aren't all characters that are not 1-240 Combining Class 0 (i.e. Spacing,
split, enclosing, reordrant, and Tibetan subjoined) ? 235,617 (including 2,048
surrogate code points) by my reckoning.
Yes. I was enumerating only the combining characters, however.
--
on 2003-11-10 07:28 Jim Allan wrote:
And the only way you can tell 7 decimal from 7 hex is by giving 7 to
different code points, that is File777 in hex should sort after File999
in decimal.
The CSS guru Eric Meyer noted that Ohio license plates translate as hex
RGB colors, mostly purple:
At 11:20 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Who knows? You adduce no evidence.
There is not much point in producing evidence if there are no agreed criteria.
OK.
In the absence of criteria the suspicion remains that decisions e.g.
not to encode Theban and Klingon are purely subjective.
OK.
--
De: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Message d'origine -
Philippe Verdy a écrit :
I was concerned recently by some people who wanted to better write the
Tifinagh languages
Stricto sensu, they are no tifinagh languages, but languages (or dialects
of
the Berber language)
An important part of Ricardo Niemietz's hex digit proposal
(http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2677) is to have columns of
hexadecimal numbers line up properly as columns of decimal numbers do.
This could be achieved using a font with a set of glyph variants for A-F
with a hexadecimal
At 10:49 AM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as there
are no Theban characters? Or what if you want to write English with the
RTL version of the Theban script which I found mentioned at
http://catb.org/~esr/unicode/theban/? That
At 10:49 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as
there are no Theban characters?
So far we have not seen evidence that the Theban script is other than
a cypher for the Latin script..
Or what if you want to write English with the
On 10/11/2003 12:53, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:49 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as
there are no Theban characters?
So far we have not seen evidence that the Theban script is other than
a cypher for the Latin script..
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 17:36 +0300 2003-11-10, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
The Wrong Thing To Do can be seen everywhere in the newspapers when
the names and some other words originally written in Cyrillic and
other scripts are letter-by-letter (mapped?) transliterated to the
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 06:36 AM 11/10/2003, Alexander Savenkov wrote:
Yes, Philippe. It is the same thing as mapping Cyrillic to ASCII
letters. It is a hack. It is to be avoided. It is the Wrong Thing To
Do.
I'm not sure I'm not taking your words out of the context,
Patrick's message on this topic gets to the heart of the issue of why to
encode Tifinagh (as Tifinagh) in the first place. But I think that
Philippe's sentiment is not misplaced, if one approaches transliteration on
the character and not the glyph level, as John and others put it. But
At 02:22 PM 11/10/2003, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The the case of Berber this is not true: it is the same language written
with 2 scripts (actually 3 as Arabic is also used). The mapping is not perfect
for now, but there are works to correct this and adopt a single convention in
each script (but with
From: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This makes no sense : the modern use of the Tifinagh script cannot be
another script... You may have meant the modern day script used for the
berber language. This is highly disputable (Morocco just started teaching
Tifinagh in its schools and they are
- Message d'origine -
De: Don Osborn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've thought for instance about the small number of schools here in Niger
that teach in Tamajak, using the Latin based script and how easy it will
or
will not be for the students to make the connections with the Tifinagh
that
At 01:57 PM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Define cypher, or cipher, and I will either provide evidence that the
Theban script is not one or accept that, on your definition, it is one. In
the absence of a definition this discussion is meaningless. Similarly if
the definition is simply a whim as
- Original Message -
De: Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is the role of diacritics and symbols added to the target script, so
that no information from the text written in the source script is lost.
Yes, I know this but you cannot go from Berber written in Arabic to
Tifinagh or
Philippe Verdy wrote:
You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set of
separate
scripts where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
I think Philippe is running off the rails here.
Tifinagh is a script. It comes in a number of local varieties,
I am not going to argue with you about Tifinagh, Philippe.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
At 13:57 -0800 2003-11-10, Peter Kirk wrote:
So far we have not seen evidence that the Theban script is other
than a cypher for the Latin script..
Define cypher, or cipher, and I will either provide evidence
that the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your
definition, it is one.
This
Don,
Berber is often written in Tifinagh without vowels. And sometimes
with vowels. Andd the same in Arabic. There is no point worrying
(without it even being encoded) about Latin transliteration standards
for it at this point.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
At 23:33 +0100 2003-11-10, Philippe Verdy wrote:
You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set
of separate scripts
What?
where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
We haven't decided what kind of unification is appropriate for
Tifinagh entities yet.
Hi list,
I have a FAQ on Unicode, for REALbasic programmers, at
www.elfdata.com/plugin/unicodefaq.html
Much of the information there, isn't stuff you are familar with,
because its all about REALbasic.
However, much of it is, because it is about Unicode.
Basically, I'm hoping people can see
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rather than encode a half dozen different
scripts for this, one for each local orthographic tradition, the
entire script was carefully unified to enable representation of
any of the local varieties accurately with the overall script
encoding. I suspect
- Message d'origine -
De: Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In this condition, why couldn't Latin glyphs be among
these, when they already have the merit of covering the whole abstract
character set covered by all scripts in the
At 04:32 PM 11/10/2003, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And because there is consensus
in both committees that encoding of the potentially very
large number of arbitrary ciphers of Latin letters (and
other scripts as well) is *not* appropriate for Unicode.
Attempting to fix an approximate number to the
On 10/11/2003 14:53, John Hudson wrote:
At 01:57 PM 11/10/2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
Define cypher, or cipher, and I will either provide evidence that
the Theban script is not one or accept that, on your definition, it
is one. In the absence of a definition this discussion is
meaningless.
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
