Re: NamesList.txt as data source

On 3/10/2016 5:49 PM, "J. S. Choi" wrote: One thing about NamesList.txt is that, as far as I have been able to tell, it’s the only machine-readable, parseable source of those annotations and cross-references. There are explanations about character use that are only maintained in the PDF of

Re: NamesList.txt as data source (was: Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols)

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Ken Whistler wrote: > > On 3/10/2016 1:00 PM, Andrew West wrote: >> It (http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt) is >> machine-readable, although the file specifically warns that "this file >> should not be parsed for

Re: NamesList.txt as data source (was: Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols)

On 3/10/2016 2:14 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Ken Whistler wrote: NamesList.txt should *not* be data mined. And yet it was the only Unicode data file utilized by MSKLC. There are many possible reasons for this approach, which we will probably

Re: NamesList.txt as data source (was: Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols)

Ken Whistler wrote: > NamesList.txt should *not* be data mined. And yet it was the only Unicode data file utilized by MSKLC. There are many possible reasons for this approach, which we will probably never know. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 

RE: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

Andrew West wrote: > It (http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt) is > machine-readable, although the file specifically warns that "this file > should not be parsed for machine-readable information". Yes, I saw that mattress tag. I could not find any other files in the UCD proper

NamesList.txt as data source (was: Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols)

On 3/10/2016 1:00 PM, Andrew West wrote: It (http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt) is machine-readable, although the file specifically warns that "this file should not be parsed for machine-readable information". NamesList.txt is just a structured text file, so of course it

Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

On 10 March 2016 at 20:49, Doug Ewell wrote: > >> >> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1D400.pdf >> >> The annotation for each reserved code point refers to the character >> that logically belongs there. > > NamesList.txt also has this information, and unlike the others, it's >

Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

Andrew West replied to Oren Watson: >> Is there a standard denoting which characters are part of each >> "mathematical variable alphabet"? There is a table on Wikipedia [...] > > Yes, the code charts in the Unicode Standard: > > http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1D400.pdf > > The annotation for

Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

On 10 March 2016 at 19:09, Oren Watson wrote: > > Is there a standard denoting which characters are part of each "mathematical > variable alphabet"? There is a table on Wikipedia > > but the

Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Asmus. Is there a standard denoting which characters are part of each "mathematical variable alphabet"? There is a table on Wikipedia < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Alphanumeric_Symbols#Latin_letters> but the placement of characters into the

Re: Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

On 3/9/2016 7:08 PM, Oren Watson wrote: I was surprised to find out that there are gaps in the Mathematical alphanumeric symbols block (U+1d400 to u+1d7ff). The gaps are associated with the inclusion of

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Ken Whistler wrote: > But to know for sure, you would probably have to get confirmation > of original sources from Barbara Beeton and/or Patrick Ion, > who collected together symbol candidates from a multitude > of print sources back in the

Gaps in Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols

I was surprised to find out that there are gaps in the Mathematical alphanumeric symbols block (U+1d400 to u+1d7ff). The gaps are associated with the inclusion of similar symbols in other blocks, chiefly the Letterlike Symbols Block. Examples of such gaps include U+1d49d, U+1d506, etc. But as a

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

On 10 Mar 2016, at 11:26, Andrew West wrote: > > On 10 March 2016 at 07:00, Martin J. Dürst wrote: >> >> because these numbers can go up to the 200s, it doesn't make sense to >> register them all as characters (one would need over 500!). > > I

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

On 10 March 2016 at 11:34, Leonardo Boiko wrote: > Isn't it better to use some sort of COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE? Of course that approach is possible, but it is quite problematic, both from the perspective of the font developer and the end user, because the circle would have

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

Isn't it better to use some sort of COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE? 2016/03/10 8:30 "Andrew West" : > On 10 March 2016 at 07:00, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > > > because these numbers can go up to the 200s, it doesn't make sense to > > register them all

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

On 10 March 2016 at 07:00, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > because these numbers can go up to the 200s, it doesn't make sense to > register them all as characters (one would need over 500!). I don't get why that would make no sense. We already have CIRCLED NUMBER 1 through

Re: Purpose of and rationale behind Go Markers U+2686 to U+2689

On 10 March 2016 at 07:00, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > So yes, these symbols are used for for mathematical research of the game of > Go, and not as far as I know for actual notation. Which indicates how absurd the proposal to emojify these four characters is.