This is your friendly reminder that the February UTC meeting is quickly
approaching. There are several public review issues open. So far, public
comment has been light. I hope you have all been working diligently on your
comments during the cold dark days of winter and are ready to spring the
On Jan 21, 2004, at 6:36 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
If a simplified form of a given CJK ideograph is used, then it
deserves encoding
properly. There are newly-coined simplified forms in CJK-B and CJK-C,
so why not
add newly used simplified forms to CJK-C or whereever if they are
really needed
?
On Jan 20, 2004, at 6:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except that this character is listed in CJK Extension C, on page 612.
(File: IRGN9285.PDF 08/06/02)
Irrelevant. Extension C isn't encoded yet. The UTC's intention is
that in the future, SC forms derivable algorithmically from their
encoded
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:33:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > These are glyph variants of Phags-pa letters that are used with semantic
> > distinctiveness in a single (but very important) text, _Menggu Ziyun_ , a
14th
> > century rhyming dictionary of Chinese in
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:32:06 -0700, John Jenkins wrote:
>
> 1) U+9CE6 is a traditional Chinese character (a kind of swallow)
> without a SC counterpart encoded. However, applying the usual rules
> for simplifications, it would be easy to derive a simplified form which
> one could conceivably
At 10:59 PM -0800 1/20/04, Doug Ewell wrote:
If you are using the "mini" version of SCSU where Latin-1 characters are
stored as 1 byte each and everything else is stored as UTF-16 (using SCU
and UC0 tags to switch between modes), you ought to achieve really good
speed.
I'll have to try this. The s
At 10:24 AM + 1/21/04, Jon Hanna wrote:
Do you plan to support XML1.1 with XOM? The C0 controls forbidden in the 1.0
spec are allowed in the 1.1 spec if they appear as character references - so
this no longer holds (unless you store them as references or
otherwise escaped,
which would bring i
> In developing such a format I have a couple of advantages:
>
> 1. Most C0 controls are forbidden, and will not appear in the data.
> That's already verified. If someone tries to pass in a C0 control
> other than tab, linefeed, or carriage return to setValue, an
> exception is thrown and the d
I just wrote:
> Oooh. That could potentially be a problem with SCSU...
Never mind. I completely misunderstood what Elliotte had written. SCSU
is, in fact, ideal for his needs.
-Doug
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> In developing such a format I have a couple of advantages:
>
> 1. Most C0 controls are forbidden, and will not appear in the data.
> That's already verified. If someone tries to pass in a C0 control
> other than tab, linefeed, or carriage return to setValue, an
> ex
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>> BZZZT! Sorry, thanks for playing. You can't get the
>> advantages of both with no drawbacks. Given the octets 0x5B5B, how
>> would you know if you had "[[" or a Chinese character?
>
> Actually, it looks like SCSU may do exactly that. If I'm
> understand
11 matches
Mail list logo
