Michael Tiemann scripsit:
Without getting greedy, I'd like to propose the adoption of the (cc)
symbol in whatever way would be most expedient (so that creative commons
authors can identify their work more appropriately), and leave for later
the question of the other symbols.
It's a logo. We
Peter Constable scripsit:
Would you consider these too idiosyncratic?
No. The idio- in idiosyncratic has to do with an individual.
I forgot to point this out earlier, but !Xu phonology isn't idiosyncratic
either -- it's just unusual. To the !Xu it's the normal thing.
--
Is a chair finely
Michael Everson scripsit:
You have a weird view of the history of phonetics, John. You haven't
addressed the substantive issue: these are Latin characters used to
represent sounds which in 1925 could not easily be represented.
And never have been represented thus since. In their day,
Michael Everson scripsit:
You don't KNOW that. You assert that. This is the adversarial style
I was objecting to, John. Could you please take this on board?
Fair enough, Michael. But the burden of going forward with the evidence
is still yours. (I'll do what I can.)
But it is QUITE
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
That doesn't mean that we stop asking all the hard questions, but that we
allow a presumption of usefulness for characters that were in demonstrated
use over some time and by several authors.
I quite agree. Here, however, we have (as far as the evidence goes) a
D. Starner scripsit:
There's at least a small user community; those people who are actively
transcribing old works, like Project Gutenberg. Due to the latest US
copyright extensions, it will take us a couple decades, but we'll want
to transcribe this article.
In 2050. I wouldn't worry about
Paul Nelson (TYPOGRAPHY) scripsit:
Currently, our implementation is that a character displayed on its
own is displayed on a dotted circle. From my recollection, this is
what is recommended in TUS. This currently works as a stand-alone
mark with a visual representation of the dotted circle in
Paul Nelson (TYPOGRAPHY) scripsit:
My assumption is the only SINHALA or SINHALA is sent to the Sinhala
engine.
Okay.
How does Unicode propose making sure that, in the plain text case, that
the space before the Sinhala combining mark is glued to the combining
mark and not the previous
Peter Kirk scripsit:
As for the speculation that these users have been almost unanimously
opposed to the proposal, I consider the remark inaccurate yet find
myself unable to attack your credibility in this regard.
Well, this sounds like a careful circumlocution for an ad hominem
attack.
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
True. I am awaiting with great impatience the arrival of a
*comparative* text of the two Pentateuchs: Two columns, one MT, one SP,
(both in Square Hebrew, MT pointed), with differences printed in LARGER
LETTERS.
Do you mean that you have ordered this and
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
(when he was awake) I talked to the assistant Rabbi, who'd given the
talk. I told him we'd been disputing this for weeks, etc...
Of course, a discussion lasting mere weeks wouldn't sound very significant
to a Talmudist.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Constable scripsit:
So if I understand correctly, the only fonts that we know of so far that
have PH glyphs encoded in the 0590..05FF block were developed by someone
who thinks PH should be encoded as a distinct script from square Hebrew.
Principle is one thing, expediency another.
Peter Kirk scripsit:
So I have an honest question. Can anyone, please, remind me of any
technical arguments other than legibility for the separate encoding of
Phoenician?
The same as the general argument for separating any two scripts: the desire
to create plain-text documents which contain
Michael Everson scripsit:
Trumps in English. I suggest that 21 trumps be encoded, but not
named, because the correspondence of names to numbers is variable.
This would be the Major Arcana?
Yes. AFAIK that term is relatively recent, ca. 1900; trump (i.e. triumph)
goes back to the Tarot's
Michael Everson scripsit:
Trump seems to mean something else in English these days.
Not really. In the game of tarot/tarocchi, which is a species of whist,
there are a fixed set of trumps; in successor games using the standard deck,
which suit is trumps is determined by one of a variety of
Dean Snyder scripsit:
So, you are saying there are glyph streams in German Fraktur that fluent,
native Germans would have trouble reading.
And in Antiqua too. Consider O0OO000O0O0OOO000O0OO000O0O0OO0.
--
John Cowan www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Penguin
Rick McGowan scripsit:
The Unicode Technical Committee has posted a new issue for public
review and comment. Details are on the following web page:
http://www.unicode.org/review/
I have prepared a draft DiacriticFolding.txt file for this issue; it is
temporarily available at
Michael Everson scripsit:
and with interleaved collation,
Which was rejected for the default template (and would go against the
practices already in place in the default template) but is available
to you in your tailorings.
I don't accept that the existing practices are necessarily a
Michael Everson scripsit:
People who need to override the default template can do so, according
to the standard.
If they're lucky. The less lucky will only get default-UCA sorting. The
least lucky will get nothing but binary codepoint sorting and a few
language-specific hacks.
The default
Jon Hanna scripsit:
[T]he default encoding on the server (which really should be utf-8
on www.unicode.org at this stage).
Currently it is, but there are sticky issues: in particular, a default encoding
overrides information in HTML meta elements as well as browser heuristics,
at least for
Jon Hanna scripsit:
This is passing strange, for the problem was UTF-8 being mis-interpreted as a
legacy encoding, not the other way around.
a) Not everyone uses a modern browser.
2) The problem might have been speculative (or memorious) rather than actual.
--
John Cowan
Doug Ewell scripsit:
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth dot com wrote:
Consequently, random pages that happen to be in non-Unicode charsets
are getting mis-served and mis-displayed. The site will probably
revert to having no default as a result, which is a great pity.
I'm sure
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
You can instruct Apache to serve a part of the site with another default
encoding by uploading with your FTP client a .htaccess file containing a
different default MIME type association.
.htaccess cannot do anything that hacking the httpd.conf file can't do.
In this
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
But today the global httd.conf does not specify any charset in the content-type,
In fact I have seen the current httpd.conf, and it does specify UTF-8 as the
DefaultCharset.
--
While staying with the Asonu, I met a man from John Cowan
the Candensian plane, which
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
There are many confusions in French with the meaning of the term gothique,
Gothic and gothic have exactly the same confusions in English, with the
addition of a subculture of people who dress in a rather unusual fashion.
--
Dream projects long deferredJohn
Andrew C. West scripsit:
It does ? I thought that the whole point of much of the recent discussion was
the uncertainty of how Ogham should be laid out in vertically formatted text,
such as when embedded in Mongolian or vertical Chinese.
What's uncertain is whether a lr or a rl progression is
Andrew C. West scripsit:
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm now suggesting that perhaps Ogham
shouldn't be rendered bottom-to-top when embedded in vertical text such as
Mongolian, but top-to-bottom as is the case with other LTR scripts such as
Latin,
I follow you. The question is,
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
How can I get so much difference in Internet Explorer when rendering Ogham
vertically (look at the trucated horizontal strokes), and is the absence of
ligatures in Mongolian caused by lack of support of Internet Explorer or the
version of the Code2000 font that I use
fantasai scripsit:
One doesn't really have to tilt one's head sideways to read the English;
it's possible to process the text vertically. I can read the passage at
a comfortable speaking speed by this method, and I imagine the Japanese
do the same.
With just a little more practice I'd be
Michael Everson scripsit:
TTB, not T2B, please. [...] BTT, not B2T, please.
It would be a violation of my traditional cultural standards to use T
instead of 2 for to. Furthermore, using 2 prevents me from writing
TBB and other such horrors.
Ogham has LTR directionality when horizontal, and
Michael Everson scripsit:
What is a 'diascript' ?
Dean's attempt to invent a new term for the gigantic bucket he thinks
Hebrew is.
Not new, not invented; as I said, already in use in French, German, and Dutch.
By analogy with diaphoneme, presumably; an abstract representation which
can
Michael Everson scripsit:
Or shouldn't simply Unicode deprecate script IDs in favor of ISO-15924
codes?
This doesn't make any sense.
I believe the suggestion is to drop the long-form Unicode script codes
currently used for the Script property in favor of 15924 codes exclusively.
--
John
fantasai scripsit:
(context: http://fantasai.inkedblade.net/style/discuss/vertical-bidi )
Notice that in B, the Chinese and the English are going
in opposite directions, even though they're both LTR scripts.
That's because the English is rotated and the Chinese is not, and
rotated text
Andrew C. West scripsit:
A page that contained both Mongolian and vertical CJK might require
a vertical bidirectional algorithm, but AFAIK that question has not
yet arisen.
I'm a little confused by the last sentence.
So was I.
In bilingual Manchu-Chinese texts, which were common
Michael Everson scripsit:
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.
Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegible. But is T2B Ogham
necessarily illegible,
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Well, I accepted somewhat reluctantly that Phoenician should be
separately encoded because a small number of users want it to be,
although a majority apparently do not want it to be.
Neither you nor anyone else knows what the majority wants, because most
interested
Michael Everson scripsit:
Which is as much to say that R2L Ogham is illegible. But is T2B Ogham
necessarily illegible, especially if the glyphs were to be reversed?
Try it and see. ;-)
It's all Greek to me.
--
How they ever reached any conclusion at all[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is starkly
E. Keown scripsit:
How did you decide that 'horizontal' is the default
direction? My impression is that 85 - 95% of *all*
elements of writing ever invented by humans are
Chinese (or other ..JKV...).
That's irrelevant. L2R and R2L scripts are often mixed in the same
sentence, whereas it's
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
It was only with Unicode 3.0 (and the correlated 10646-1:2000)
that this was rationalized to the Unicode definition of
UTF-8 formally consisting of only 1-4 bytes sequences, while
simultaneously the potential need for 5 and 6-byte sequences
in 10646 was removed,
Mike Ayers scripsit:
I agree with those who think that interleaving Phoenician ad Hebrew
would not be a good default. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: is
it not correct that language scholars are those most likely to be able to
create and use a nondefault sort order?
I see
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are convinced
of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have trusted the
judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and have either not
dared to stand up to him or have simply been unqulified
Tom Emerson scripsit:
Perhaps Michael can enlighten us on the rational for grouping hiragana
and katakana together as a single script.
They aren't. They are collated together, that's all.
--
How they ever reached any conclusion at all[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is starkly unknowable to the human
Michael Everson scripsit:
Phoenician and Hebrew should not be interfiled, of course, in the
default table, though John Cowan seems to think otherwise.
'Seems', monsieur? Nay, 'does'; I know not 'seems'.
--Not Quite Hamlet
The point is, of course, that if Phoenician is to be used to
Jony Rosenne scripsit:
A possible strong negative argument would be if having it would cause
problems for those who do not think they need it. For example, if it would
make searching more difficult. This argument has been raised, but I am not
convinced the possible difficulties are
E. Keown scripsit:
This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew
base characters equivalent
at the first level of collation.
Could this be translated and expanded into Basic
Not-so-Geeky English???---Elaine
It means that given an alphabetized list of words, some of which are
E. Keown scripsit:
So could you do this with all Semitic/Afroasiatic languages which have
something like alef and beth? Is there a numeric limit?
No, there's no numerical limit. You could do it for whichever 22CWSAs
Unicode ends up encoding. Another consequence is that searching as well
as
Carl W. Brown scripsit:
So which timezone will the tr_TR locale in a TR35 database have?
Asia/Istanbul or Europe/Istanbul or both?
Both.
I guess that the territory possessions list should be an another
database that is merged.
I think they should be in the same database. Guam is a
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I do agree. The fact that both Europe/Istanbul and Asia/Istanbul
are referenced is probably not really political, but it reflects
the fact that this city is on both continents, and that it's timezone
covers more than just this city. Someone leaving on the Asian area
Patrick Andries scripsit:
The same is true for huit (8) / vit (he lives or virile member) , huitre
(oyster) / vitre (window pane), huis (door) / vis (you (sing.) live,
live ! or screw), etc.
Similarly, English final -u/v was always interpreted as u, so phonetically
final v had to be written
Michael Everson scripsit:
At 11:30 -0700 2004-05-06, E. Keown wrote:
The logical implication of Everson's work is that part of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and all the Samaritan material and all other material of
that type, should be encoded in his proposed block.
No, Elaine. The implication
John Jenkins scripsit:
There is, moreover, a non-zero cost to revising a program or OS to use
a new 8-bit encoding. Realistically, people running machines or using
software too old to use Unicode aren't likely to get much advantage at
this point by the creation of a new 8-bit standard.
African Oracle scripsit:
Looking at the above it is obvious that the acute on top of the e and o with
dot below is a bit too high almost to the point of looking like a cedilla
under E.
The fact that it looks that way to you does not mean that it looks that
way to everyone. I'm writing this
Peter Constable scripsit:
2) the characters in question are structurally / behaviourally very
similar to square Hebrew characters, but not to the characters of other
scripts
Not just very similar: structurally, behaviorally, and even phonemically
identical.
Item 1, I think we'd agree, is
Peter Constable scripsit:
What are the directional properties of Pheonician? Is it RTL only, or
was it ever written with a different directionality?
It's RTL only, except to the extent that you consider Archaic Greek a
script variant of Phoenician. :-)
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Everson scripsit:
Well. Depends what you mean by forms. Our taxonomy currently lists
Samaritan, Square Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, and Mandaic as modern (RTL)
forms of the parent Phoenician.
Arabic and Syriac have very specialized shaping behavior which makes them
obviously distinct
African Oracle scripsit:
Are we saying we have exhausted such necessity?
Yes.
And what are these legacy-standard encodings?
Those devised by ISO, various national governments, IBM, Microsoft, and Apple,
roughly speaking.
No new composite values will be added. - Peter Constable
The above
Michael Everson scripsit:
Enshrining justifications in the proposal documents really all that
important? It sounds like busywork to me.
No, this point I insist on. It's really, really important, as we descend
further into the labyrinth of difficult choices (how to encode? what to
unify or
Michael Everson scripsit:
If you think that a Hebrew Gemara, with its baroque and
wonderful typographic richness, can be represented in a Phoenician
font,
I don't think that one bit. (Why is it that when I disagree with
someone, that person so frequently wants to accuse me of believing
in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Wondering about casing, if the gb diagraph appears initially, I have
a booklet for learning Yoruba which includes the proper name of the
Rt. Rev. Isaac Gbekeleoluwa Abiodun Jadesimi in the bilingual dedication.
In both the Yoruba and English versions of the
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Suppose that a modern Hebrew text is speaking about Phoenician words, the script
distinction is not only a matter of style but carries semantic distinctions as
well, as they are distinct languages. It's obvious that a modern Hebrew reader
will not be able to decipher
It's been pointed out to me that I never explained the abbreviation
22CWSA. Mea culpa. I got tired of typing 22-character West Semitic abjad.
--
Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is yourJohn Cowan
ear. However, I would suggest you wash your[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hands thoroughly before
Michael Everson scripsit:
But the variation of some Latin and Cyrillic letters can be just as great.
Unsupported assertion. You don't have anything like the difference
between a single-stroke Hebrew YOD and a three-pronged Phoenician YOD
between Cyrillic and Latin.
What about the
Ego et Michael Everson inter se scripserunt:
An alternate version of Michael could present a similarly
technically impeccable proposal for Gaelic script, and then the
question would be, is it the same as Latin, or is it a separate
script requiring a separate encoding?
Except that he
John Hudson scripsit:
On the one hand, the obvious recommendation would be to tell semiticists to
continue doing what they have been doing: encoding as Hebrew and displaying
with Phoenician-style glyph variants, as this enables textual analysis and
comparison with a larger body of Hebrew
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
So now we are left with orthographic/phonetic letters. c-stroke is one that
was covered in your searches. But now that we know that capital C-stroke
is also used, can Unicode be updated later to add a case mapping for
c-stroke, if C-stroke is added later?
Yes.
Michael Everson scripsit:
Please, Mark. You don't spend as much time on the Unicode list as I
do. Trust me.
Or trust MichKa.
Either way, please make a new list for this specialized discussion area.
I add my voice to these. Please create a separate list for public
discussion of locales,
I'm surfacing an issue from [EMAIL PROTECTED] because it may have
wider applicability.
Currently, it's the rule that variation selector characters can't be
applied to combining characters. This is sensible in the case of true
diacritical marks: if two marks differ in shape, they ought in general
Edward H. Trager scripsit:
(Windows' lack of a decent shell and command-line tools is probably
what makes the OS most annoying).
Cygwin (http://www.cygwin.com) is your friend; it provides a relatively
complete Unix hosted on Win32. It works best on the NT branch of the
family when the disks
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
Rick said:
[...] I would tend to think that that what we have
is just a set of variations on the ordinary cent sign, and any number of
variant glyphs can be used. [...]
I draw a somewhat different conclusion.
But why? You don't provide any argument
Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader scripsit:
It sorta seems like the need to keep phrases like Louis XIV together
is a valid one the deserves a solution, but it also seems fairly
esoteric-- typesetters and people who give a lot of thought to the
presentation of their text
XML has become the de facto standard for fancy text. It is therefore
useful to explore ways and means of bringing XML into plain text,
since obviously plain text is simpler than, and superior to, fancy text.
The current method involving and and and / and who knows what else
is obviously much
Peter Kirk scripsit:
But, as Ken has just clarified, with NBSP Louis' neck may be stretched
rather uncomfortably, if not cut completely. Here is what I don't want
to see (fixed width font required):
Louis XVI was
guillotinedin
1793.
This, however, is a matter of presentation
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
So far, my understanding was that the normative properties of existing code
points where carved in stone.
Not all normative properties are immutable. A normative property is
simply one which you have to get right if you claim conformance to
that part of Unicode: you
Patrick Andries scripsit:
Small question again.
Why is U+17C1 KHMER VOWEL SIGN E of General category Mc (Mark, Spacing
Combining) while similar signs in Lao and Thai, related scripts, are of
General category Lo (Letter, Other) ?
See U+0E40 THAI CHARACTER SARA E and U+0EC0 LAO VOWEL
Antoine Leca scripsit:
I am sorry John, I should have miss a post of yours. I asked you where it is
written, and did not find any answer to this; unless someone consider that
all marks, including spacing combining vowels, are (European) diacritics.
Well, it depends on what the equivoque
Avarangal scripsit:
Can any one provide information on the sequences used for diplaying
and printing dependent vowels as standalones.
The standards-conforming way to do so is to precede the dependent vowel with a
space character (U+0020). If this sequence is not displayed correctly, complain
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
Ernest Cline wrote:
It also doesn't account for boustrephedon writing direction either.
^
boustrophedon
Ah well. I once referred to Herodotos throughout a posting as Herotodos
(googling
Pavel Adamek scripsit:
From the viewpoint of sorting,
the coding HCOMBINING C BEFORE
would be much better than
CCOMBINING H AFTER.
For Czech, yes. For Spanish we want the latter.
--
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far John Cowan
coast and she with grameful sigh him
Arcane Jill scripsit:
Why are characters being assigned codepoints U+, when
there is still loads and loads of unused empty space below that point.
In fact the BMP is currently 87.5% full. When the 32 remaining blocks
currently shown on the Roadmap are completed, it will be almost 99%
Jon Wilson scripsit:
The character in question is a variant of CIRCLED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER
A, commonly referred to as the Anarchy symbol. The bars of the A are
longer than normal, extending to touch or even overlap the circle.
It's basically a logo, and as such doesn't belong in Unicode,
Jon Wilson scripsit:
PEACE SYMBOL, YIN YANG and HAMMER AND SICKLE are represented in Unicode.
The first and third are even logos for specific organisations (CND and
various communist governements).
PEACE SYMBOL, as its name indicates, has a considerably wider scope
than nuclear disarmament,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Thus, the digraph 0062+0068 (i.e., bh) represents the same conceptual
object as 1E03. Note that, if a selection of Irish text is set using one
convention or the other, problems with spell checkers will occur UNLESS there
is some metadata that indicates the writing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
In this context, and if it's true that a spell checker could, in theory, be
programmed to handle parallel encoding conventions, then why shouldn't Irish
language traditionalists encode the i with a LATIN SMALL LETTER DOTLESS I
such as 0131?
It could be done, yes,
Ernest Cline scripsit:
I'm not saying that sufficient support can't be shown. I'm saying that
the examples shown are not enough to convince me of the desirability
of encoding subscript x and subscript / as official Unicode characters
instead of as markup or as private use characters.
I
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I see some similarities between the undetermined vowel tainting letter (the
subscripted x) and the leading star in the expression, used to denote an
undetermined infered historic letter. Shouldn't both use the same glyph with
just a distinct positioning? Could it be
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Which words? hungry, hunger, Hungary, Henry ? I don't know a
syllable-initial /h/ in English out of word-initial /h/... And even in that
case, I think this comes from contracted phonetic of fast or popular speech,
where there's an intermediate schwa between /h/ and
Peter Kirk scripsit:
John, your phonology isn't actually even reasonable. [eng] occurs
intervocally in words like hanger, singing. Whether this is syllable
initial depends on your analysis.
Fair enough; but hang-er, sing-ing *is* the conventional analysis. English,
generally speaking,
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
I was playing around with making my very own IPA keyboard, and I
discovered to my surprise that Unicode has no Latin Small Theta (for
IPA). We have LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA (U+0251), LATIN SMALL LETTER
GAMMA (U+0263), LATIN SMALL LETTER EPSILON (U+052B, though
Markus Scherer scripsit:
UTF-8 is useful because it's simple, and supported just about everywhere -
but it's otherwise hardly optimal for anything.
You entirely omit its principal advantage, sine qua non: it's maximally
ASCII-compatible, using bytes 0x00 to 0x7F to represent ASCII characters
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Is the other competing UTF-9 from Jerome Abela this one:
No. Abela's version preserves all of 00-7F and A0-FF, packing all the rest
of Unicode into sequences beginning with any of 80-9F.
--
XQuery Blueberry DOMJohn Cowan
Entity parser
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 Chinese ideographs are listed by
their Phags-pa spellings. In this
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I'd really like to know more about Breton, but the fact is that despite I am
a native Breton and live there in Britanny, finding resources in this
language is hard because it is not supported by public schools and even
forbidden in all documents with some legal value.
Michael Everson scripsit:
At 14:53 +0100 2004-01-15, Chris Jacobs wrote:
WHY THEN DISTRIBUTES THE KLI SUCH A BLATANTLY UNCONFORMANT FONT?
yIjachQo'. vItlhob.
{{{:-)
Demonstrating once again that the One True Script for Klingon is Latin.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Not really: look at how uppercase letters are used: case mapping, which is
quite safe in languages written with the Latin script,
Oh, is it? I note quite a difference between a polish manufacturer and a Polish
one. Indeed, in one case a Polish-language newspaper in
Jon Hanna scripsit:
A locale-sensitive title-case operations for the Klingon language would not
produce Yijachqo'. Vitlhob. from yIjachQo'. vItlhob. any more than a
locale-sensitive title-case operation for the Irish language would produce
Nathair from nAthair although a deliberately fuzzy
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
Even in the case of Irish, the uppercase S denotes a distinctful variant
of s, which should better be noted with some diacritic, such as a hacek or
cedilla...
That is not the case.
Imagine what happens when reading uppercased Irish book titles
and the confusion it
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
It's incredibly useful, Philippe, to have some inkling of what you're
talking about before you answer.
What, and ruin his large and growing reputation as one of the masters of
misinformation? He'll be challenging Abrigon Gusiq next.
--
While staying with the
Frank da Cruz scripsit:
Is anybody aware of a Unix stdin/stdout application (suitable for
piping) that converts a text stream from one character encoding to
another based on its MIME headers (as you would find, for example, in
an email message)?
The following script is not bulletproof, but
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
OK. Then don't say it's Breton: It may occur in any Latin language, either
as a typo, or within specific technical usages such as variable names in a C
or Java program where a space cannot be used to separate words; here also
it's not the normal orthograph part of the
Alexander Savenkov scripsit:
You mixed everything up, Phillippe.
As we say in America, General Grant [1822-1885] Still Dead.
--
Do what you will, John Cowan
this Life's a Fiction[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And is made up of
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
