Jim Allan jallan at smrtytrek dot com wrote:
Ewellic, to be sure, does not match one to one with the standard Latin
alphabet. But I would presume that when Doug Ewell created it he was
familiar with either IPA or some other phonemic/phonetic notation such
as that in Webster dictionaries.
From: Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
The common 3of9 bar code are normally implemented in a font in which the
bar code characters are placed in the position of the corresponding
ASCII or EBCDIC characters. This is a simple cipher fonts and the bar
code characters are unique
Please unsubscribe me.
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Andrew C. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: elided base character or obliterated character (was: Hebrew composition model, with cantillation marks)
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 02:24:58 -0800
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 00:35 +0100 2003-11-13, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I think that the line is drawn between scripts used to communicate
between
sentient peoples,
As opposed to, what? Australopithecus? My cat?
Read the end of the sentence. I suppose this is a joke here...
Please Unsubscribe me.
Thanks.
Dr Niladri Sekhar Dash (Corpus Linguistics, Lexicography, and Semantics)Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition UnitIndian Statistical Institute203, Barrakpore Trunk RoadKolkata 700108, West Bengal, INDIAPhone:(91)(33) 25781832FAX: (91)(33)
Quoting Chris Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The interpretation of private use characters (Co) as graphic characters or
not is determined by private agreement.
The interpretation of private use characters (Co) as base characters or not
is determined by private agreement.
The interpretation of
.
Jon Hanna wrote,
As I see it the following behaviours would all be conformant:
Jon offered opinions about PUA and conformance and was gracious
enough to indicate that it was opinion.
Here's my take, FWIW:
Any application which bans or prevents the interchange or storage
of PUA code points
Any application which bans or prevents the interchange or storage
of PUA code points should be considered non conformant.
Any application which substitutes missing glyphs for PUA characters,
when a valid font which covers those code points is active,
should be considered non conformant.
I
Adults can say no (as indeed can non-adults), but consenting
adults are, by definition, adults who say yes. If they say no, they are
not consenting. Consenting, by definition, means saying yes.
James's statement ("any application which restricts PUA use is
effectively precluding consenting
At 23:23 -0800 2003-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
For one thing, most of them seemed to think i
as in ice is a single vowel, and ch as in
church is a single consonant, and I happened
to disagree.
For the latter, compare catch it with cat sht
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * *
I see no reason why a protocol cannot introduce a
higher-level rule which prohibits the use of PUA characters.
And indeed IDN (Internationalised domain names) does so.
Basically, IDNs aren't private, or, if you will, the established
agreement for IDNs is not to interpret PUA characters at
/Adults/ can say no (as indeed can non-adults), but /consenting/ adults
are, by definition, adults who say yes. If they say no, they are not
consenting. Consenting, by definition, means saying yes.
Consenting means saying yes when you can say no. Saying yes when a no won't be
listened to is
Ken Whistler posted:
*Ciphers* are orthographies designed (ideally) to map one-to-one
against graphemes of a writing system and (ideally) are designed
to obscure those graphemes by using non-obvious forms to hide
content from casual observers.
I don't think whether a system was designed to
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
For one thing, most of them seemed to think i
as in ice is a single vowel, and ch as in
church is a single consonant, and I happened
to disagree.
For the latter, compare catch it with cat shzt
Yep. How do we distinguish the first case,
The source and the sink are higher level entities with their
own higher level protocols.
Yes, and they would be examples of the first and second case I gave in my first
mail on this thread.
The channel between source and sink, which
is the Unicode level and below, should be transparent to
On 13/11/2003 08:32, Jim Allan wrote:
...
For example Morse code, semaphore flags, braille, and bar codes are
often implemented in fonts as one-to-one transliterations of the
corresponding Latin characters. But these systems were not at all
designed to obscure the graphemes to which they
James Kass posted:
Any application which substitutes missing glyphs for PUA characters,
when a valid font which covers those code points is active,
should be considered non conformant.
From Unicode 4.0, Chapter 3, Conformance, rule C8:
_C8 A process shall not assume that it is required to
On 13/11/2003 09:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The source and the sink are higher level entities with their
own higher level protocols.
Yes, and they would be examples of the first and second case I gave in my first
mail on this thread.
The channel between source and sink, which
is
At the risk of prolonging a pointless thread:
A cipher is a transfer encoding scheme. So are barcodes, semaphore flags,
Morse code, and Base64. The point of each of these is to transfer some piece
of plaintext. Unicode is, among other things, a character encoding scheme,
not a transfer encoding
.
Jim Allan wrote,
I take this to mean that any application can refuse to interpret PUA
code points and still be conformant.
(Please note that in my original post, I was only expressing an
opinion of the way things should be, rather than stating that
this is way it is.)
Quoting from TUS 4.0,
.
(Please note that in my original post, I was only expressing an
opinion of the way things should be, rather than stating that
this is way it is.)
Sigh, '...the way it is...'.
To clarify (or make another try at it), Jim Allan's original post
made it clear that he was expressing his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now as I review this thread (and find one of my very own typos),
I wonder if Jim Allan and I are on the same page when we
speak of missing glyph? It means something very specific
in the font jargon.
I understand missing glyph.
But these days different applications
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unicode probably shouldn't impose any such requirement, the missing
glyph is not part of Unicode and is not mapped to any character.
The purpose and semantics of the missing glyph are: 'this is the
glyph that will be displayed by every application when the font
in use
At 12:54 -0800 2003-11-13, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
P.S. Speaking personally, I don't care all that much. Tai Lue is a
better English name (even though it is really a Tai name ;-) ), but
if the Chinese come into WG2 next June with a ballot comment
insisting on a name change, I'm not planning to
Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps rather than cipher one should say that Unicode does not encode
separately scripts or systems intended solely as transliterations of
other scripts. Ciphers are a common example of such scripts and systems.
What about 1E62/3, 135E/F and 1E6E/1E6F?
.
Jim Allan wrote,
Probably the best solution would be to display a special glyph with the
meaning character not supported.
TUS seems to suggest (4.0 on page 110) that various control pictures
can be used in these special circumstances. It might even be helpful
for an application to use a
D Starner asked:
Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps rather than cipher one should say that Unicode does not encode
separately scripts or systems intended solely as transliterations of
other scripts. Ciphers are a common example of such scripts and systems.
What about
27 matches
Mail list logo
