Julian Bradfield wrote,
> I have never seen a Unicode math alphabet character in email
> outside this list.
It's being done though. Check this message from 2013 which includes the
following, copy/pasted from the web page into Notepad:
혗혈혙혛 혖혍 헔햳햮헭.향햱햠햬햤햶햮햱햪 © ퟮퟬퟭퟯ 햠햫햤햷 햦햱햠햸
On 2019-01-13, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> यदि आप किसी रोटरी फोन से कॉल कर रहे हैं, तो कृपया स्टार (*) दबाएं।
> What happens with Devanagari text? Should the user community refrain
> from interchanging data because 1980s era software isn't Unicode aware?
Devanagari is an established
On 2019-01-14, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> 퐴푟푡 푛표푢푣푒푎푢 seems a bit 푝푎푠푠é nowadays, as well.
>
> (Had to use mark-up for that “span” of a single letter in order to
> indicate the proper letter form. But the plain-text display looks crazy
> with that HTML jive in it.)
Indeed. But
_Art
On 2019-01-13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> As far as the information goes that was running until now on this List,
> Mathematicians are both using TeX and liking the Unicode math alphabets.
As Khaled has said, if they use them, it's because some software
designer has decided to use
Martin J. Dürst wrote,
> I'd say it should be conservative. As the meaning of that word
> (similar to others such as progressive and regressive) may be
> interpreted in various way, here's what I mean by that.
>
> It should not take up and extend every little fad at the blink of an
> eye. It
"Looking back at the history of computing, a large chunk of the
underlying technology has hit stability. ARM chips, x86 chips, Unix,
and Windows have all been around since 1985 or before, roughly 35
years ago and 35 years since the first programmed computer. They
aren't wildly changing."
I
> But even most adults won't know the rules for what to italicize that
> have been brought up in this thread. Even if they have read books that
> use italic and bold in ways that have been brought up in this thread,
> most readers won't be able to tell you what the rules are. That's left
> to
Marcel Schneider wrote,
> There is a crazy typeface out there, misleadingly called 'Courier New',
> as if the foundry didn’t anticipate that at some point it would be better
> called "Courier Obsolete". ...
퐴푟푡 푛표푢푣푒푎푢 seems a bit 푝푎푠푠é nowadays, as well.
(Had to use mark-up for that “span”
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 7:03 PM Martin J. Dürst via Unicode
wrote:
> No, the casing idea isn't actually a dumb one. As Asmus has shown, one
> of the best ways to understand what Unicode does with respect to text
> variants is that style works on spans of characters (words,...), and is
> rich
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 8:26 PM James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
> It's subjective, really. It depends on how one views plain-text and
> one's expectations for its future. Should plain-text be progressive,
> regressive, or stagnant? Because those are really the only choices.
> And opinions
On 2019/01/14 01:46, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
>> And what happens when you capitalise a word for emphasis or to begin a
>> sentence? Is it no longer the same word?
>
> Indeed. As has
Julian Bradfield replied,
>> Sounds like you didn't try it. VS characters are default ignorable.
>
> By software that has a full understanding of Unicode. There is a very
> large world out there of software that was written before Unicode was
> dreamed of, let alone popular.
यदि आप किसी
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 04:52:25PM +, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> > This is an italicized word:
> > 푘푎푘푖푠푡표푐푟푎푐푦
> > ... where the "geek" hacker used Latin italics letters from the math
> > alphanumeric range as though they were Latin
On 13/01/2019 17:52, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
This is a math formula:
a + b = b + a
... where the estimable "mathematician" used Latin letters from ASCII as
though they were math alphanumerics variables.
Yup, and it's immediately
On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> This is a math formula:
> a + b = b + a
> ... where the estimable "mathematician" used Latin letters from ASCII as
> though they were math alphanumerics variables.
Yup, and it's immediately understandable by anyone reading on any
computer that
On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
> Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
>
>> It's also fundamentally misguided. When I _italicize_ a word, I am
>> writing a word composed of (plain old) letters, and then styling the
>> word; I am not
On 2019-01-12, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Sounds like you didn't try it. VS characters are default ignorable.
By software that has a full understanding of Unicode. There is a very
large world out there of software that was written before Unicode was
dreamed of, let alone popular.
>
On 2019/01/13 13:24, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Mark E. Shoulson wrote,
>
> > This discussion has been very interesting, really. I've heard what I
> > thought were very good points and relevant arguments from both/all
> > sides, and I confess to not being sure which I actually prefer.
18 matches
Mail list logo
