Re: PUA (BMP) planned characters HTML tables

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 at 02:27, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > On 2019-08-11 5:26 PM, [ Doug Ewell ] via Unicode wrote: > > If you are thinking of these as potential future additions to the standard, > > keep in mind that accented letters that can already be represented by a > > combination of

Re: Fonts and Canonical Equivalence

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 15:46, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > > Just retested on Windows 10 with > > a Tibetan font that supports both sequences of vowels, and both > > sequences display correctly under Harfbuzz (as expected), but only > > vowel-below followed by vowel-above displays

Re: Fonts and Canonical Equivalence

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > There are similar issues with Tibetan; some fonts do not work properly > if a vowel below (ccc=132) is separated from the base of the > consonant stack by a vowel above (ccc=130). It's not that the fonts don't work, it's

Re: Proposal to extend the U+1F4A9 Symbol

On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 23:32, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > > Tex wrote: > > > What I would find useful is an emoji for when my phone falls into the > > toilet. > > I would have thought ⤵ would be sufficient. Don't worry, a brand new foolproof method of defining emoji for anything in the

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 15:34, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode wrote: > > italic version of a glyph in plain text, including a suggestion of to > which characters it could apply, would test whether such a proposal > would be accepted to go into the Document Register for the Unicode >

Re: Proposal for BiDi in terminal emulators

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 22:20, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > > Richard Wordingham wrote: > > > Language tagging is already available in Unicode, via the tag > > characters in the deprecated plane. > > Plane 14 isn't deprecated -- that isn't a property of planes -- and the > tag characters U+E0020

Re: Encoding italic

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 01:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > This bold new concept was not mine. When I tested it > here, I was using the tag encoding recommended by the developer. Congratulations James, you've successfully interchanged tag-styled plain text over the internet with no

Re: Encoding italic

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 10:25, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: > > The overall tag proposal had the desired effect: The original proposal > to hijack some unused bytes in UTF-8 was defeated, and the tags itself > were not actually used and therefore could be depreciated. And the tag characters

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 15:42, James Kass wrote: > > Here's a very polite reply from John Hudson from 2000, > http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML024/1042.html > ...and, over time, many of the replies to William Overington's colorful > suggestions were less than polite. But it

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 13:59, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > FAICT, the emoji repertoire is vendor-driven, just as the pre-Unicode > emoji sets were vendor driven. Pre-Unicode, if a vendor came up with > cool ideas for new emoji they added new characters to the PUA. Now that > emoji are

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On Thu, 24 Jan 2019 at 02:10, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote: > > Unicode isn't here to encode cool new ideas that would be cool and > new. It's here for writing what people already do. http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18141r2-emoji-colors.pdf "Add 14 colored emoji characters for decorative

Re: Encoding italic (was: A last missing link)

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 03:16, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > Possible approaches include: > > 3 - Open/Close punctuation treatment > Stateful. Works on ranges. Not currently supported in plain-text. > Could be supported in applications which can take a text string URL and > make it a

Re: Private Use areas - Vertical Text

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 11:18, wrote: > > I was using a change horizontal to vertical text feature in office, the > PUA characters being from plane 15. I tested with Word 2007, and normal PUA characters from my font were displayed with vertical orientation in a vertical text box, but Plane 15 PUA

Re: Private Use areas - Vertical Text

On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 at 05:07, via Unicode wrote: > > Yes, as Richard says when CJK Zhuang text is displayed vertically whilst > the Zhuang characters in Unicode remain upright, but those with PUA > codepoints are rotated 90°. John, you did not explain by what mechanism you were trying to display

Re: Private Use areas - Vertical Text

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 18:15, WORDINGHAM RICHARD via Unicode wrote: > > Unicode is doing what it can in this matter: > > (a) Zhuang PUA characters are being made individually obsolete. Not by a nebulous entity called "Unicode", or even by the Unicode Consortium per se, but by the hard work over

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On 8 June 2018 at 13:01, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > I wonder if Mark Davis will be quick to agree with me  when I say that > ISO/IEC 15897 has no use and should be withdrawn. It was reviewed and confirmed in 2017, so the next systematic review won't be until 2022. And as the

Re: Translating the standard

On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version No it is not, and never has been. Why don't you check your facts before making misleading statements to this list? > or at least, it should have an

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

On 7 March 2018 at 22:18, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > > Additional note: the UCS will never large enough to support the personal > signatures of billions Chinese people living today or born since milleniums, > or jsut those to be born in the next century. There's a

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

On 28 February 2018 at 13:22, Christoph Päper via Unicode wrote: >> >> The 157 new Emoji are now available for adoption > > But Unicode 11.0 (which all new emojis but Pirate Flag and Infinity rely > upon) is not even in beta yet. Don't even get me started on that! >> There

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

On 28 February 2018 at 10:48, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote: >> >>> The 157 new Emoji are now available for adoption, to help the Unicode >>> Consortium’s work on digitally disadvantaged languages. >> >> I'm quite curious what it the relation between the new emojis and

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

You can use ♥⭐➕ in California. Someone has U+1F913 邏 ( https://www.instagram.com/p/BVYtIHensDu/) Andrew On 14 February 2018 at 16:24, Stephane Bortzmeyer via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:44:06PM +0530, > Shriramana Sharma via Unicode

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 23 January 2018 at 00:55, James Kass via Unicode wrote: > > Regular American users simply don't type umlauts, period. Not even the president of the Unicode Consortium when referring to Christoph Päper: http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18051-emoji-ad-hoc-resp.pdf Andrew

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 19 January 2018 at 13:19, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > I’d go talk with him :-) I published Alice in Kazakh. He might like that. Damn, you'll have to reprint it with apostrophes now. Andrew

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

On 19 January 2018 at 09:16, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > Wow. Somebody really needs to convey this to the Kazhaks. Else a > short-sighted decision would ruin their chances at native IDNs. Any Kazhaks > on this list? There's only one Kazakh who counts, and I'm

Re: Xiangqi Game Symbols (was Re: Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation)

On 12 April 2017 at 15:58, Garth Wallace wrote: > > So has that proposal been retracted now? Once a proposal has been approved it cannot simply be retracted by the submitter. On the SC2 side, the proposed characters have been subject to ballot comments from national bodies, and

Xiangqi Game Symbols (was Re: Proposal to add standardized variation sequences for chess notation)

On 12 April 2017 at 05:12, Garth Wallace via Unicode wrote: > > Later Xiangqi proposals by Andrew West focused on > the circled ideographs and did not pursue new diagram drawing characters, > and were eventually successful. My Xiangqi proposal