On 2019/01/11 10:48, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Is it true that many of the CJK variants now covered were previously
> considered by the Consortium to be merely stylistic variants?
What is a stylistic variant or not is quite a bit more complicated for
CJK than for scripts such as Latin.
Richard Wordingham responded,
>> ... simply using an existing variation
>> selector character to do the job.
>
> Actually, this might be a superior option.
For the V.S. option there should be a provision for consistency and
open-endedness to keep it simple. Start with VS14 and work
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 23:43:46 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> The second step would be to persuade Unicode to encode a new
> character rather than simply using an existing variation selector
> character to do the job.
Actually, this might be a superior option.
Richard.
Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
> A perhaps more affirmative step, not necessarily first
> but maybe, would be to write up a proposal and submit
> it through channels so the "powers that be" can
> respond officially.
Indeed. And a preliminary step might be to float the concept on the
public list
On 1/10/19 6:43 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
The first step would be to persuade the "powers that be" that italics
are needed. That seems presently unlikely. There's an entrenched
mindset which seems to derive from the fact that pre-existing
character sets were based on mechanical
Yesterday I wrote as follows.
I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a
COMBINING ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the
character that it immediately follows. So, for example, to make the
word apricot become displayed in italics one would use seven
Oops. Sorry for the inadvertent copy/paste duplication.
On 2019-01-10 11:27 PM, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote:
Yesterday I wrote as follows.
I suggest that a solution to the problem would be to encode a
COMBINING ITALICIZER character, such that it only applies to the
character that it immediately follows. So, for example, to make the
word
On 2019-01-10 4:41 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> That is pretty good actually and even a positive
> point for emoji (if these were mere images you
> would get nothing out of it without extra tagging,
> and it would still lack the standardization).
> Nothing like what one gets from the math symbols
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 09:54:59PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu 10 Jan, 2019, 20:49 Arthur Reutenauer via Unicode <
> unicode@unicode.org wrote:
>
> >
> > On this topic, I was just pointed to
> >
> > https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/1083073242330361856
> >
>
On Thu 10 Jan, 2019, 20:49 Arthur Reutenauer via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org wrote:
>
> On this topic, I was just pointed to
>
> https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/1083073242330361856
>
> “You 혵혩혪혯혬 it's 풸퓊퓉ℯ to 현헿헶혁헲 your tweets and usernames
> 햙햍햎햘 햜햆햞. But
> have you 홡홞홨황홚홣홚홙
On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 09:06:26AM +, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> The unintended usage of math alphanumerics in the real world is fairly
> widespread, at least in screen names.
On this topic, I was just pointed to
https://twitter.com/kentcdodds/status/1083073242330361856
12 matches
Mail list logo
