If that's the case then we shouldn't have this discussion.
Which got started by the ICU folks observing that if they implemented
the changes in property for library functions it would lead to
unintelligible text (at least in the short run -- because there was no
plan to get font support ready
Just an observation on these issues: When the Mtavruli proposal was first
presented to UTC, several UTC members voiced strong reservation because of the
kind of issues mentioned for case mapping, and in particular on database
indexing and querying. Several months later, various UTC members
Alex:
Quoting you from two separate messages:
> Many Georgian scientists working with script and language are not fans of
> "uppercase" font styles.
>With all my respect, N2608R2 is right and N4712 is wrong about case in
>Georgian.
Can you comment, then, on N4776, in which the Georgian
თარიღი პარ.27ივლ 21:07, Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode წერს:
Could you please comment how the samples in photos prove that it is not small
caps? N4712 does not contain analysis on that, only statements. (Simple
assertions that it is correct will add nothing to what is already stated in
N4712.)
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:00:31 -0700
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
> > To get back to Markus' original question on how to handle this for
> > ICU: it seems more and more that Georgian should be
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> > It is in present continuous tense, so, samples from 19th century are not
> valid. (They are probably also not valid formally, but I have to check
> those books first.)
> What is “formal validity”? Those
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> > Then how can you prove it is a case and not a stylistic variation? Let's
> compare with a case of Hebrew or Arabic, for example.
> Well, go ahead. Compare it. Show some example of Hebrew or Arabic that
On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 07:00:31 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> To get back to Markus' original question on how to handle this for
> ICU: it seems more and more that Georgian should be exempted from
> standard library functions and that a new function needs to be added
> that just
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> >> You have me to thank for undoing that mistake. And some other mistakes.
> We all make mistakes.
> > I would like to avoid personal discussions if possible.
> You are addressing the author of N2608R2
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 02:02:07PM +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> 1) Show evidence of titlecasing in Hebrew or Arabic.
FWIW, there was a case system for Arabic used at some point in Egypt,
called “crown letters”, and introduced under the direction of king Fuad
and was used in some
On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:42, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> MIchael Everson wrote,
>
>> No, James is mistaken. Georgian is structurally casing, and the difference
>> is not stylistic, but orthographic.
>
> I am not mistaken; I never said Georgian wasn't structurally casing and I
> never said
On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:42, Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode
wrote:
> Michael, can you please provide an example for the modern Georgian?
N4712 Figures 7 through 13.
> It is in present continuous tense, so, samples from 19th century are not
> valid. (They are probably also not valid formally, but
On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:28, Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode
> wrote:
>> You have me to thank for undoing that mistake. And some other mistakes. We
>> all make mistakes.
>
> I would like to avoid personal discussions if
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> No, James is mistaken. Georgian is structurally casing, and *the
> difference is not stylistic, but orthographic*.
Other people made the argument you are making, Alex. My Georgian colleagues
> and I made
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> > It is a mistake or misinterpretation of evidence provided (modern
> samples and samples from 19th c., provided in N4712 in the same context,
> are of different nature, it is clear even from images) and
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:44 PM, Michael Everson via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> You have me to thank for undoing that mistake. And some other mistakes. We
> all make mistakes.
>
I would like to avoid personal discussions if possible.
> > Those institutes were consulted. I met with
No, James is mistaken. Georgian is structurally casing, and the difference is
not stylistic, but orthographic.
Other people made the argument you are making, Alex. My Georgian colleagues and
I made the better, more accurate argument. Now Georgian users will be able to
use Mtavruli in plain
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:34 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> There's nothing preventing the Georgian user community to continue to
> consider this a stylistic difference.
Yes. The only issue here is that Unicode encoding does not reflect the
actual state, but (implicitly) promotes some
On 27 Jul 2018, at 12:22, Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode
wrote:
>
> It is a mistake or misinterpretation of evidence provided (modern samples and
> samples from 19th c., provided in N4712 in the same context, are of different
> nature, it is clear even from images) and §8 of the document states
On 27 Jul 2018, at 09:35, Alexey Ostrovsky via Unicode
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:54 AM, James Kass via Unicode
> wrote:
> https://unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4712-georgian.pdf
>
>> The revised proposal to change the Georgian encoding model from caseless to
>> casing was convincing and
There's nothing preventing the Georgian user community to continue to
consider this a stylistic difference. There's no downside to being
able to preserve such distinctions in plain text. Although there are
short-term implementation issues, Unicode is going to be around for a
while.
It is a mistake or misinterpretation of evidence provided (modern samples
and samples from 19th c., provided in N4712 in the same context, are of
different nature, it is clear even from images) and §8 of the document
states opposite. The criteria for presence of orthographic distinction
between
Yes and it explains clearly that “effectively caseless Georgian” is incorrect.
Georgian has case. Georgian uses case differently from other scripts. This is
an orthographic distinction, not a structural one. In fact as it is also stated
in the proposal, there are 19th-century texts which do
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 03:41:47PM -0700, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> Ein⁽ᵉ⁾ A⁽¨⁾rzt⁽ⁱⁿ⁾ hat eine⁽ⁿ⁾ Studenti⁽ᵉ⁾n gesehen.
It doesn’t actually look that bad! Although I’d like to amend the end
to “eine⁽ⁿ⁾ Student⁽ⁱ´ᵉ⁾ⁿ gesehen”.
Best,
Arthur
On 2018/07/27 01:27, Markus Scherer via Unicode wrote:
I would not expect for Ä+combining () above = Ä᪻ to look right except with
specialized fonts.
http://demo.icu-project.org/icu-bin/nbrowser?t=%C3%84%5Cu1ABB==0
Even if it worked widely, I think it would be confusing.
Yes, for the moment.
25 matches
Mail list logo
