On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:10:37 +0200, Cristian Secarã wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 07:51:42 -0800, Peter Constable wrote:
Microsoft has never used the label 'OpenFont' for this or any of the
fonts that ship with their products.
However, the .ttf fonts that ship with their products are
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:38:25 +0700, Paul Hastings wrote:
John Cowan wrote:
Googling for free Unicode fonts (no quotes) is useful.
sort of, when i've googled for this in the past, language-specific
(chinese seemed to be the most frequent) fonts turn up more often than
not. hey if you
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:13:21 -0800 (PST), E. Keown wrote:
At the U.N. and in some countries, they have 'official
languages.' The U.N. has 5, I think. Singapore has 4,
several African countries have 2-3, and so forth.
Does either the ISO or the IEC have official
languages? Whether
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:06:23 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Mark Davis wrote:
All comments are reviewed at the next UTC meeting. Due to the volume, we
don't reply to each and every one what the disposition was. If actions were
taken, they are recorded in the minutes of the
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:29:20 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
The UTC refused to add Yiddish to the name, unlike the other Yiddish
specialties, and I am not aware of any other possibility.
Why should it? Incorporating a language name into a character name,
as in
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:24:17 +0200, fantasai wrote:
If a Latin initialism appears in a bottom-to-top text
and the characters are oriented upright rather than
rotated, should the initialism read up or down?
UA
S or S ?
AU
In traditional monumental
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 03:04:17 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
How many people use medieval CJK race-horse-name characters?
Actually, the famous Song dynasty female poet Li Qingzhao (1084-c.1151) invented
a board game (da3 ma3 tu2 in Chinese) which involved racing around a course in
which each
At the risk of keeping the thread from hell alive, I'd like to point out a new
contribution by Michael Everson that may be of interest to participants in this
debate :
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2787-phoenician.pdf
To my untrained eyes this document provides some pretty compelling
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:05:00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
H.7 Some criteria weaken the case for encoding
-- the symbol is purely decorative
This would seem to exclude dingbats altogether.
Or perhaps more apposite examples would be the shamrock and fleur-de-lis symbols
(see N2586R). Whilst
On Fri, 28 May 2004 06:51:27 -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
As things now stand, Ogham must be wrapped in RLO...PDF brackets when
mixed with vertical Han or Mongolian.
Yes, that's true -- and I don't see any reason why people can't live with
that... Those are the kinds of reasons we have the
On Wed, 26 May 2004 04:34:21 -0700 (PDT), Andrew C. West wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:08:26 -0700, John Hudson wrote:
Andrew C. West wrote:
I've never quite worked out what purpose U+2616 [WHITE SHOGI PIECE] and
U+2617
[BLACK SHOGI PIECE] are intended for.
I would like
On Tue, 25 May 2004 17:30:37 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote:
John that going beyond the double-twelve (for now) is just speculative
and not supported by actual use in dominoes books.
I don't think this is speculative. A photograph of production domino sets
above 12 is included in the
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:08:26 -0700, John Hudson wrote:
Andrew C. West wrote:
I've never quite worked out what purpose U+2616 [WHITE SHOGI PIECE] and
U+2617
[BLACK SHOGI PIECE] are intended for.
The standard game of shogi (Japanese Chess) has 20 uncoloured tiles on each
side
On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:09:43 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
At 04:40 -0700 2004-05-26, Andrew C. West wrote:
But we're not encoding dominos per se, but rather encoding
representations of domino pieces in textual contexts. Whilst
pictures of domino sets are interesting, and provide useful
On Mon, 24 May 2004 20:11:08 -0700, Patrick Andries wrote:
Proposal to encode dominoes and other game symbols
This could get out of hand very quickly. Chinese and Japanese (shogi)
chess pieces?
To complete U+2616 and U+2617 ?
I've never quite worked out what purpose U+2616 [WHITE
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:23:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
Now that you mention it, it could well be that Chaturunga and Chinese
Chess both could be considered extensions to a unified Chess
repertoire:
WHITE CHATURANGA COUNSELLOR (- white chess queen)
WHITE CHATURANGA ELEPHANT (- white
On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:00:51 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
At 03:27 -0700 2004-05-25, Andrew C. West wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:23:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
Now that you mention it, it could well be that Chaturunga and Chinese
Chess both could be considered extensions
Michael Everson wrote:
Come on, people. Read the standard, please. It's on page 338.
Michael is absolutely right to rebuke me for not reading the Standard. Of course
I have read the Ogham block intro before, and no doubt that is where I got the
notion of rendering Ogham BTT from, but I had
On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:59:50 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
It should not. That's what makes Ogham different from standard
horizontal scripts -- it does have a preferred vertical orientation,
It does ? I thought that the whole point of much of the recent discussion was
the uncertainty of how Ogham
On Sat, 15 May 2004 14:14:50 -0400, fantasai wrote:
That's a hack, not a solution.
There's a fine line between hack and solution, and I'm not sure which side
of the line my proposed technique falls.
Again, if you take the text out of the
presentational context you've warped it into, it
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:15:55 +0100, Jon Hanna wrote:
It seems to me that as far as Ogham goes the positioning of successive glyphs
is
more comparable to the way a graphics program will position text along a path
(allowing text to go in a circle, for example) than the differences between
LTR,
On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:12:50 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
Andrew C. West scripsit:
Thus, if tb-lr were supported, your browser would display the
following HTML line as vertical Mongolian with embedded Ogham reading
top-to-bottom, but in a plain text editor, the Mongolian and Ogham
would
On Mon, 17 May 2004 12:32:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I follow you. The question is, then, whether T2B Ogham is legible or
not to someone who reads B2T Ogham fluently -- unfortunately, your texts
are all pothooks and tick marks to me.
If you're used to reading Ogham LTR on the
On Fri, 14 May 2004 18:44:10 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
You can't play around with Ogham directionality like that. Reversing
it makes it read completely differently! The first example reads
INGACLU; the second reads ULCAGNI.
Well I disagree. As I said in the message, the RTL result
On Thu, 13 May 2004 16:33:51 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's irrelevant. L2R and R2L scripts are often mixed in the same
sentence, whereas it's barely possible to mix horizontal and vertical
scripts on the same page; when it must be done, the vertical script
is generally rotated to
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:09:19 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
At 02:40 -0700 2004-05-14, Andrew C. West wrote:
(not that Ogham's strictly BTT, but it is largely BTT in monumental
inscriptions
I think it is always BTT in the inscriptions.
My understanding is that when written along
On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:43:53 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew C. West scripsit:
In bilingual Manchu-Chinese texts, which were common during
the Manchu Qing dynasty [1644-1911], the text normally follows the Manchu
page
layout, with vertical lines of Manchu and Chinese interleaved
On Sun, 2 May 2004 12:14:29 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
jameskass at att dot net wrote:
The BabelPad editor can easily convert between UTF-8 and NCRs...
As can SC UniPad.
For $199 (unless you're only interested in editing files up to 1,000 characters
in length).
Andrew
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:35:55 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote:
The unified Brahmis proposal exactly proposes unification of systems with
vastly different rendering behavior. That's part of the controversy with it.
But that proposal is currently sitting on a siding waiting to be taken up
by the
On Fri,
Andrew C. West scripsit:
For example, the excellent description of the Tocharian script
(surely the worst made-up name for a dead script ever) at
http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/didact/idg/toch/tochbr.htm could
be the basis of a proposal for this important Brahmic script
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:36:48 +0100, Raymond Mercier wrote:
The problem of the size of Unihan has nothing at all to do with the cost of
storage, and everything to do with the functioning of programs that might
open and read it.
Since the lines in Unihan are separated by 0x0A alone, not
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 15:49:53 -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
Unicode 4.0.1 has been released!
The main new features in Unicode 4.0.1 are the following:
1. The first significant update of the Unihan Database (Unihan.txt)
since Unicode 3.2.0, including a large number of fixes and
Patrick Andries wrote:
Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Have you folks noticed the addition of Narrow Non Break Space?
Yes, but I have not been able to find a font with a narrow enough glyph
(I just looked again at Code 2000).
Does anyone know of an appropriate font for French in
Some of you may be interested to know that a French version of BabelMap (now
supporting Unicode 4.0.1) is available from :
http://uk.geocities.com/BabelStone1357/Software/BabelMap_fr.html
In this version all Unicode data (character names, block/plane names, UCD
properties, character
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 18:37:49 +0200, Antoine Leca wrote:
On Thursday, April 01, 2004 12:37 AM
Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] va escriure:
Have you folks noticed the addition of Narrow Non Break Space?
Is it intended (in part) for French typography?
No, it was introduced for Mongolian;
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 03:36:29 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
What about a cell phone or PDA for use in China. Some users may prefer
vertical display of text, but then the system needs to know what to do
with Latin etc text embedded in the Chinese. Isn't that a credible
scenario? Or are the
On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 20:02:45 -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Most importantly, you don't need
to wander all over the PUA - with modern typesetting systems and good fonts,
you just place a ct there and the software automatically ligatures it for you.
You can use a ZWJ to ask for a ligature and ZWNJ
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:27:09 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Of the 64 entities listed on the page:
http://www.chinavoc.com/arts/calligraphy/eightstroke.asp
*none* of them are encoded, and *none* of them are standard
enough to merit consideration -- if by consideration you mean
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:53:40 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
There are minimal pairs at the
syllable level between the British pronounciation of Birmingham (silent
h, stress on first syllable only) and many similar -ingham names, and
(rarer) place names like Odiham (Hampshire) - although I
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:12:41 +, Michael Everson wrote:
At 02:50 -0800 2004-02-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
As for Birmingham, I like the idea of analysing
it as a monosyllable [b?m©Øm] although I would
tend to think of the eng and the second m as
syllabic, but there is then a near minimal
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:13:33 -0700, John Jenkins wrote:
Granted, epigraphy is tough on plain text. As Unicode starts to deal
with dead scripts, we have to deal with the issues it raises.
Variation selectors are one way of doing it.
Yes, but I'm delighted to see from document N2684
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:32:06 -0700, John Jenkins wrote:
1) U+9CE6 is a traditional Chinese character (a kind of swallow)
without a SC counterpart encoded. However, applying the usual rules
for simplifications, it would be easy to derive a simplified form which
one could conceivably see
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:33:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew C. West scripsit:
These are glyph variants of Phags-pa letters that are used with semantic
distinctiveness in a single (but very important) text, _Menggu Ziyun_ , a
14th
century rhyming dictionary of Chinese in which
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:36:54 -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Currently, Variation Selectors work only one way. You could 'force' one
particular
shape. Leaving the VS off, gives you no restriction, leaving the software free
to give you either shape. W/o defining the use of two VSs you cannot
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:23:31 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean Snyder wrote,
Tom Gewecke wrote at 2:26 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
...
Agreed. I can't imagine that anyone who has ever tried to actually do
anything with Unicode Mongolian would recommend variation selectors
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:44:18 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
I received the following reply from a Zhuang researcher, which agrees
with what Andrew has written:
...
There are two other orthographies in use in Zhuang. Most important,
there is an ancient Zhuang square-character script that has
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:37:30 -0800 (PST), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Perhaps someone on the list who knows more about the actual
history of orthographic reform in the Zhuang Autonomous Region
of Guangxi could chime in with more details.
Well, I'm not really that knowledgeable about Zhuang, but
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 05:29:51 -, C J Fynn wrote:
U+0F09 which was erroneously named BKA-SHOG YIG MGO (should have been ZHU-YIG
GO RGYAN), is used for writing respectfully to a senior particularly when
requesting something. e.g when writing to a government officer or minister
requesting a
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 13:54:18 +, Michael Everson wrote:
LATIN LETTER TONE SIX **is** the SOFT SIGN clone into Latin, and
should be used for Pan-Turkic. I've suggested, but perhaps not loudly
enough, that the reference glyph be modified to be more soft-sign
like.
LATIN LETTER TONE SIX
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:36:25 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Ancient forms of Aramaic
aren't going to be taken up anytime soon for any consideration
for encoding. And the Roadmap cannot be taken as a predetermination
of the eventual decisions in this regard, in my opinion.
Maybe not as far
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:59:06 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
I deliberately followed the roadmap codepoints for my recent
'Phags-pa proposal even though I think 'Phags-pa probably belongs in
the SMP (but I don't really care where 'Phags-pa is encoded as long as
it is encoded, so I am happy to
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:53:13 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
OK. In fact I suspect that the number that have meaningful semantics
and effective usage is actually rather small and could be fitted within
the higher PUA planes if one chose to do that. After all, not many
languages use large numbers
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:40:25 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
There are plenty of things one can do with writing that aren't supported
by computer encodings, and aren't really expected to be. The idea of a
black i with a red dot was mentioned. Here's another: the
piece-by-piece exploded diagrams used
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:25:01 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote:
Can anyone tell me whether ideographic description characters are ever
actually used?
Well, I use them on a couple of my web pages to describe unencoded ideographs
(try viewing http://uk.geocities.com/BabelStone1357/Alphabets/Zhuang.html
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:20:02 -0700, John Jenkins wrote:
I checked with Lee Collins (who's the person who put the data in there
originally). Quoth'a:
It's called Yale, since it appears in a number of Samuel Martin's works
published by Yale Press.
Oops, I guess I really ought to have
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 05:17:16 +0900 (KST), Jungshik Shin wrote:
For the nice summary of various transliteration/transcription schemes
for Korean, see
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ez3k-msym/charsets/roma-k.htm
Thanks, this page seems to provide just the information I need to convert the
Does anyone know what is the system of transliteration used for the kKorean key
in the Unihan database ? The notes at the top of Unihan.txt simply state that
kKorean gives The Korean pronunciation(s) of this character. However, the
readings are in some strange orthography that I am not familiar
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:11:55 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
This is all rather interesting speculation. There are surely a lot of
potential cases in scripts where some kind of combining mark can be
considered as applying to a sequence of an arbitrary number of
characters. For example:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:32:51 +, Arcane Jill wrote:
You are getting personal and indulging in ad hominem. I consider this
out of order.
Wow, people really are tetchy today.
The published Mail List Rules and Etiquette state that Correspondents should
remain tolerably polite and consider
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:16:15 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
Well, one reason could be that there is no such character. (Did you
mean U+1034A GOTHIC LETTER NINE HUNDRED?)
But why do U+10341 [GOTHIC LETTER NINETY] and U+1034A [GOTHIC LETTER NINE
HUNDRED], which are letters that are only ever used
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:04:33 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 26/11/2003 04:40, Andrew C. West wrote:
Is this perhaps because all the other Gothic letters
can also be used to represent numbers in exactly the same way that U+10341 and
U+1034A are used (these two letter were devised specifically
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:47:16 +0100 (CET), Philippe VERDY wrote:
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet
Explorer\International\Scripts\42]
IEFixedFontName=Code2001
IEPropFontName=Code2001
This setting is incorrect: the script IDs go between 3 and 40,
See
I've been looking at the Vietnamese readings given in the Unihan database
recently, and although I don't know Vietnamese, I think there may be something
not quite right with some of them, and so I wondered if anyone on this list who
knows Vietnamese could confirm the validity of the Unihan
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:12:52 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even with the registery changes that allow Uniscript to work with such
characters?
Oops, my mistake. I had forgotten that I had deliberately deleted the registry
settings that control how IE deals with surrogate pairs sometime ago
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:02:49 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
An invalid GB18030 sequence, like FE 40, or a valid but out-of-range
sequence, like E3 32 9A 36, should be treated just like an invalid or
out-of-range UTF-8 sequence. Issue an error message, format the hard
disk, whatever; just don't
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:12:26 +0100, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Could an editor loading such incorrect but legacy GB-18030 file accept to
load it and work with it using an internal-only UCS-4 mapping (or an
extended UTF-8 mapping), to preserve those out of range sequences, as if
they were mapped
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 01:32:16 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote,
If you visit
http://people.netscape.com/ftang/testscript/gb18030/gb18030.cgi?page=596
and your machine have surrogate support install correctly and surrogate
font install correctly then you
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:10:49 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
I don't think the secrecy criterion is sufficient to qualify a writing
system as a cipher (whether it is necessary is another question). Nüshü
(sp?) was developed primarily for secrecy, if I'm not mistaken, and I
doubt anyone would
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 14:57:51 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Here's a little table of the combining classes, showing the value, the
number of characters in the class, and a handy name (typically the one
used in the Unicode Standard, or a CODE POINT NAME if there is only one;
sometimes of my own
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 12:51:53 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
IIRC we talked about this a year or so ago, and kicked around the idea that
the Chinese square could be treated as a glyph variant of U+3013 GETA MARK,
which looks quite different but symbolizes the same thing.
I suspect that few Chinese
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:24:00 +0100, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The obliterated character needed for paleolitic studies, or to encode any
texts in which the character is not recognizable already exists: isn't it
the REPLACEMENT CHARACTER?
The problem of how to represent missing/obliterated
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 08:30:24 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
I can't help thinking that other specialized lists, such as those
for bidi and CJK, were created to resolve this exact type of problem.
CJK list ? Now if only there was a list of Unicode lists ...
i'm looking for a tool or a tutorial to convert japanese
signs in numeric unicode signs (e.g. #30041;). Can you help me?
Try BabelPad at uk.geocities.com/BabelStone1357/Software/BabelPad.html
Select the text, and click on Convert : NCR to Unicode from the menu.
Or simply check the
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:05:05 -0700, Peter Lofting wrote:
The representation of slashed digits are problematic for two reasons.
(1) The notation is that a slash indicates half of the value. This is
different to the less a half interpretation Andrew describes, which
would only be true for
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:58:03 -0700 (PDT), Andrew C. West wrote:
Try BabelPad at uk.geocities.com/BabelStone1357/Software/BabelPad.html
Select the text, and click on Convert : NCR to Unicode from the menu.
Or simply check the Convert NCRs checkbox on the file open dialog when you
open
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Patrick Andries wrote:
Would anyone know what U+24650 means?
Probably only Yang Xiong really knows what U+24560 means in the context of
Tetragram #9, but unfortunately he's been dead for a couple of thousand years.
Rather than bravely attempt to translate the Chinese
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:42:09 +0800, Anthony Fok wrote:
What is a good place for discussions on these issues? And which
personnel and which sources are involved with esp. the CJK-Ext-A
kCantonese data? It would be nice to talk with the original people to
find out how these errors crept in,
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:38:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds, then, like these are *not* two of the left-stemmed tone
letters (mirrors of 02E5..02E9) that I'm going to be including in a
proposal for additional modifier characters for tone.
Peter,
I notice from document N2626
Not knowing very much about the Tai script I consulted some Chinese reference
books to see how the Chinese designate the Tai script.
The Languages and Scripts volume of the _Ci Hai_ encyclopaedia (Shanghai,
1978) states that there are four main script traditions used for writing the Dai
(= Tai)
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 21:28:30 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
Presumably the name of the U.K. would change, however.
Why? It would be the United Kingdom of Great Britain, which comprises
England, Scotland, Wales, and the Duchy of Cornwall.
United Kingdom of Great Britain as opposed to the
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:15:44 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
NuShu (or Nüshu) is periodically discovered and raised for
discussion on this list.
There has been considerable interest in Nü Shu (literally women's writing) in
recent years, especially amongst feminist academics in Japan and
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:09:08 -0700, Rick Cameron wrote:
Ah, but what you don't realise [and it's not surprising, because MSDN
doesn't make it clear] is that when ScriptTextOut calls ExtTextOut, it
passes glyph indices, and uses the ETO_GLYPH_INDEX option.
Thus, the two statements are
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:15:14 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The Win32 Text APIs (such as TextOut) actually DO support UniScribe
transparently on Windows XP... In most applications, this means that the
UniScribe support works without requiring explicit calls to the Uniscribe API.
Surely some
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:59:19 -0700, Rick McGowan wrote:
That is section 2.2 of the WG2 Principles and Procedures document. It is
available on-line. Go here:
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/principles.html
I'm familiar with this document (n2352r), and it does indeed list the
I have made available for consultation a draft proposal for the encoding of the
'Phags-pa or hPhags-pa script (mainly used for writing Chinese and Mongolian
during the 13th and 14th centuries) at :
uk.geocities.com/BabelStone1357/hPhags-pa/N2352.html
A set of additional pages relating to the
Ken,
Thank you for your kind response to my latest rant. It has gone a long way to
reassuring me that my concerns over MFVSs and the already defined Mongolian
standardized variants are unfounded.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
The Mongolian variants are
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:22:30 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just have a hard time believing that 50 years from now our grandchildren
won't look back, What were they thinking? So it took them a couple of
years to figure out canonical ordering and normalization; why on earth
didn't they
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:58:28 -0700, Elisha Berns wrote:
Some weeks back there were a number of postings about software for
viewing Unicode Ranges in TrueType fonts and I had a few questions about
that. Most viewers listed seemed to only check the Unicode Range bits of
the fonts which can be
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:26:13 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Isn't there a work-around with the following function (quote from Microsoft
MSDN):
(with the caveat that you first need to allocate and fill a Unicode string for
the
codepoints you want to test, and this can be lengthy if one wants to
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:05:26 +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
Err, as in this particular case one vowel sign is above and the other
one is below the stack - i.e. they don't interact spatially - you
cannot really distinguish them. ;)
I know that the vowel signs do not interact with each other
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:47:26 +0400, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
And given that the two look identical in writing in the first palce,
this lexical difference had a chance to originate exactly *where*?
You are putting the cart before the horse.
Well, unless the text has been scanned with OCR, a
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 13:41:27 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter asked:
How can things that are visually indistinguishable be lexically different?
chat (en)
chat (fr)
And if Unicode reordered vowels in front of consonants, then we wouldn't be able
to distinguish :
chat (en)
On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 17:38:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That sounds, then, like these are *not* two of the left-stemmed tone
letters (mirrors of 02E5..02E9) that I'm going to be including in a
proposal for additional modifier characters for tone.
I noticed that in Yuan Jiahua's
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 08:28:12 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard to say without seeing them, but if they are simply contours, then
those are already supported in Unicode by means of ligatures of the five
already there. If it's something else, go ahead and send me the scan (with
bibliographic
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:27:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bigger question is, can your software access the ligatures?
Works like a dream with Uniscribe 1.453.3665.0 and later.
Andrew
On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 18:04:58 +0100, Raymond Mercier wrote:
One (free) tool that will allow you to investigate what blocks of Unicode
are actually covered in a font file is:
http://pfaedit.sourceforge.net/
And to see what fonts on your disk support specified unicode blocks,
another
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:11:48 -0500 , Mount, Rob (Robert F) wrote:
I am investigating differing behavior in various environments of the
wide-character version of the C function isAlpha with respect to
character U+30FC KATAKANA-HIRAGANA PROLONGED SOUND MARK.
The UNICODE documents seem
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 21:51:26 +0930, Kevin Brown wrote:
Does the Unicode Standard specify an upper limit to the length of a
character's Unicode Name?
See Annex L Character naming guidelines of ISO/IEC 10646-1: 2000
(unfortunately not easily available over the net, which is a shame as you have
On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 08:13:49 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/StandardizedVariants.html, there is
no variation sequence 2205, FE00 defined. Somebody needs to tell the
author(s) of this page that they can't make up their own variation-selector
On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Kenneth Whistler wrote:
In general, when people are interested in classes of characters,
like this, a quick trip into the Unicode Character Database is
a useful thing to do. In particular, look for the list of
characters with the property
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
