On Friday 30 July 2010, John H. Jenkins jenk...@apple.com wrote:
Obviously this is an important new symbol, and I'm sure
that WG2 and the UTC will make every effort to encode it as
expeditiously as possible. As for exactly how long it
will take, neither WG2 nor the UTC has even *met* since
Since no-one else seems to have responded to Luke...
Den 2010-07-30 22.09, skrev Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org:
This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these
existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly noticable
ways.
That is most certainly a font
On 31 July 2010 08:54, William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote:
I wonder how long all of the balloting will take and how long will be idle
time between ballots and meetings.
The standardization process and balloting regulations that govern
ISO/IEC 10646 are set out in Part 1 of
Something is not considered for now in UCA, the special behavior
introduced with Variable Weighting (UTS#10 3.2.2 Variable Weighting)
is too simplistic and quite confusive.
First.
The term chosen for the Blanked option is really confusive, when it
does not mean that these variable elements are
From: Fr�d�ric Grosshans (frederic.grossh...@m4x.org)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2010 - 12:06:16 CDT
Le vendredi 30 juillet 2010 à 08:36 -0700, Kenneth Whistler a écrit :
I suspect that many French users would be utterly unable to
tell a correct ordering of all the modèle, modelé words
from an
As an option (which may be in fact the default), this mode should also
treat all runs of variable elements by only making the FIRST of them
with a non-ignorable primary weight [.0201].
If there are several variable elements, the subsequent ones will get
the primary weight [.] instead, but
In order to avoid confusions with the modes named Blanked or
Separating, May be we could adopt a clearer general syntax for them:
- Blanked - []
- Separating - [.0201*]
- Shifted - [...*]
This syntax explicitly states the collation weights that are inserted
in variable elements, and
Luke-Jr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these
existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly
noticable ways. Nor are these characters mere styling that should
require rich-text (including changing fonts) to
I can see the point to your wanting to have another option, but it is
unclear to me whether sufficiently many people would find that useful as to
warrant its inclusion. There is also nothing preventing implementations from
supporting it even if it isn't in the UCA standard.
In any event, before
9 matches
Mail list logo
