> On 2 Dec 2018, at 20:29, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 02 2018 at 10:33 +0100, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> It was common in the 1800s to singly and doubly underline superscript
>> abbreviations in handwriting according to [1-2], and [2] also mentions
>> the
On Sun, Dec 02 2018 at 10:33 +0100, Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>> On 30 Oct 2018, at 22:50, Ken Whistler via Unicode
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>>> but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
>>
>> For what it's worth, "mgr" seems
> On 30 Oct 2018, at 22:50, Ken Whistler via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>> but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
>
> For what it's worth, "mgr" seems to be the usual abbreviation in Polish for
> it.
It was common in
On 06/11/2018 12:04, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
Hi!
On the over 100 years old postcard
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6
you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in
Polish) as
On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the over 100 years old postcard
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6
>
> you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in
> Polish) as meaning "Magister".
>
[...]
> The third
On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the over 100 years old postcard
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6
>
> you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in
> Polish) as meaning "Magister".
[...]
> The second
On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On the over 100 years old postcard
>
> https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6
>
> you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in
> Polish) as meaning "Magister".
>
> First question is: how
On 05/11/2018 17:46, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the but two possible variants (that would be equally
valid withou preference).
Actually you're not proposing them. You're talking about them (at
length) on
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the abbrevaition mark> but two possible variants (that would be equally
> valid withou preference).
Actually you're not proposing them. You're talking about them (at
length) on the public mailing list. If you want
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:55:17 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> I can also cite the case of Egyptian hieroglyphs: there's still no
> way to render them correctly because we lack the development of a
> stable orthography that would drive the encoding of the missing
> **semantic** characters
Sorry, I didn’t truncate the subject line, it was my mail client.
On 04/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the
but two possible variants (that would
be equally valid withou preference). Use it after any base cluster
(including with
Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the but two possible variants (that would be equally valid
withou preference). Use it after any base cluster (including with
diacritics if needed, like combining underlines).
- the first one can be to render the previous cluster as
On 03/11/2018 23:50, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
When the topic being discussed no longer matches the thread title,
somebody should start a new thread with an appropriate thread title.
Yes, that is what also the OP called for, but my last reply though
taking me some time to write was sent
Possible new thread titles include:
Re: NFKD vs. NFLD (was Re: ...)
Re: Man's inhumanity to humane scripts (was Re: ...)
Re: Mayan and Egyptian hieroglyphs prove emoji pollute the character
encoding model (was Re: ...)
Re: Polynomials and the decline of western civilization (was Re: ...)
It should be noted that the algorithmic complexity for this NFLD
normalization ("legacy") is exactly the same as for NFKD ("compatibility").
However NFLD is versioned (like also NFLC), so NFLD can take a second
parameter: the maximum Unicode version which can be used to filter which
decomposition
When the topic being discussed no longer matches the thread title,
somebody should start a new thread with an appropriate thread title.
Le sam. 3 nov. 2018 à 23:36, Philippe Verdy a écrit :
> - this new decomposition mapping file for NFLC and NFLD, where NFLC is
>> defined to be NFC(NFLD), has some stability requirements and it must be
>> warrantied that NFD(NFLD) = NFD
>>
> Oops! fix my typo: it must be warrantied that
>
> Unlike NFKC and NFKD, the NFLC and NFLD would be an extensible superset
> based on MUTABLE character properties (this can also be "decompositions
> mappings" except that once a character is added to the new property file,
> they won't be removed, and can have some stability as well, where the
I can give other interesting examples about why the Unicode "character
encoding model" is the best option
Just consider how the Hangul alphabet is (now) encoded: its consonnant
letters are encoded "twice" (leading and trailing jamos) because they carry
semantic distinctions for efficient
As an additional remark, I find that Unicode is slowly abandoning its
initial goals of encoding texts logically and semantically. This was
contrasting to the initial ISO 106464 which wanted to produce a giant
visual encoding, based only on code charts (without any character
properties except glyph
As well the separate encoding of mathematical variants could have been
completely avoided (we know that this encoding is not sufficient, so much
that even LaTeX renderers simply don't need it or use it !).
We could have just encoded a single to use
after any base cluster, and the whole set was
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 20:01, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> a écrit :
> On 02/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> [quoted mail]
> >
> > Using variation selectors is only appropriate for these existing
> > (preencoded) superscript letters ª and º so that they
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:38:45 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Do we have any other evidence of this usage, besides a single
> handwritten postcard?
What, beyond some of us actually employing it ourselves? I'm sure I've
seen 'William' abbreviated in print to 'Wᵐ' with some mark below, but
On 02/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
Using variation selectors is only appropriate for these existing
(preencoded) superscript letters ª and º so that they display the
appropriate (underlined or not underlined) glyph.
And it is for forcing the display of
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 16:20, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> a écrit :
> That seems to me a regression, after the front has moved in favor of
> recognizing Latin script needs preformatted superscript. The use case is
> clear, as we have ª, º, and n° with degree sign, and so on
On 31/10/2018 at 19:34, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 10:32 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>
> Let me remind what plain text is according to the Unicode glossary:
>
> Computer-encoded text that consists only of a sequence of code
> points from a given standard,
On Fri, Nov 02 2018 at 5:09 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> To transcribe the postcard would mean selecting the characters
> appropriate for the printed equivalent of the text.
You seem to make implicit assumptions which are not necessarily
true. For me to transcribe the
Michael Everson wrote:
> I write my 7’s and Z’s with a horizontal line through them. Ƶ is
> encoded not for this purpose, but because Z and Ƶ are distinct in
> orthographies for varieties of Tatar, Chechen, Karelian, and
> Mongolian. This is a contemporary writing convention but it does not
>
Do we have any other evidence of this usage, besides a single
handwritten postcard?
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
On 01/11/2018 16:43, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
I don't think it's a joke to recognize that there is a continuum here and that
there is no line that can be drawn which is based on straightforward
principles.
[…]
In this case, there is no such framework that could help
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 01:44:25PM +, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> I write my 7’s and Z’s with a horizontal line through them. Ƶ is encoded
> not for this purpose, but because Z and Ƶ are distinct in orthographies
> for varieties of Tatar, Chechen, Karelian, and Mongolian. This is a
On 11/2/2018 4:31 AM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Suppose someone found a hundred year old form from Poland which
included a section for "sign your name" and "print your name"
which had been filled out by a man with the typically Polish name
Suppose someone found a hundred year old form from Poland which included
a section for "sign your name" and "print your name" which had been
filled out by a man with the typically Polish name of Bogus McCoy? And
he was a Magister, to boot! And proud of it.
If he signed the magister
Julian Bradfield wrote,
>> consists of three recognizable symbols. An "M", a superscript
>> "r", and an equal sign (= two lines). It can be printed, handwritten,
>
> That's not true. The squiggle under the r is a squiggle - it is a
> matter of interpretation (on which there was some
On 2018-11-02, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and spell
> things the way they are written. The abbreviation in question as
> written consists of three recognizable symbols. An "M", a superscript
> "r", and an equal sign (= two
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> Alphabetic script users' handwriting does not match
> print in all features. Traditional German handwriting
> used a line like a macron over the letter 'u' to
> distinguish it from 'n'. Rendering this with a
> u-macron in print would be the height of absurdity.
If
On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 6:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 12:52 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:35:19 -0700
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, your emails are extremely hard to read in plain text.
> It is
On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 13:34 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 10:23 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> Looks like you completely missed my point. Nobody ever claimed that
> reproducing all variations in manuscripts is in scope of Unicode, so
> whom do you want to
On 11/1/2018 7:59 PM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and
spell things the way they are written. The abbreviation in
question as written consists of three recognizable symbols. An
Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and spell
things the way they are written. The abbreviation in question as
written consists of three recognizable symbols. An "M", a superscript
"r", and an equal sign (= two lines). It can be printed, handwritten,
or in
Richard Wordingham responded to Janusz S. Bień,
>> ... Nobody ever claimed that reproducing all variations
>> in manuscripts is in scope of Unicode, so whom do you want
>> to convince that it is not?
>
> I think the counter-claim is that one will never be able
> to encode all the
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:23:05 +0100
"Janusz S. Bień via Unicode" wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 8:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> > I don't think it's a joke to recognize that there is a continuum
> > here and that there is no line that can be drawn which is based on
> >
On 01/11/2018 01:21, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 3:37 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[…]
It is a fallacy that all text output on a computer should match the convention
of "fine typography".
Much that is written
On 11/1/2018 10:23 AM, Janusz S. Bień
via Unicode wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 8:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode
On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 8:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2018 11:27 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
>
> but we don't have an
On 11/1/2018 12:33 AM, Janusz S. Bień
via Unicode wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 11:27 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
but we don't have an agreement that
On 11/1/2018 12:52 AM, Richard
Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:35:19 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in applying certain styling
attributes to things like e-mail or discussion
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:35:19 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On the other hand, I'm a firm believer in applying certain styling
> attributes to things like e-mail or discussion papers. Well-placed
> emphasis can make such texts more readable (without requiring that
> they pay attention
On Wed, Oct 31 2018 at 12:14 -0700, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 11:27 AM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> but we don't have an agreement that reproducing all variations in
>> manuscripts is in scope.
>
> In fact, I would say that in the UTC, at least, we have an
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:57:37 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 10:18 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>> Sad that Arabic ² and ³ are still missing.
> How about all the other sets of native digits?
They might not be in natural use this way! Also, there is the
As is "Mgr" for Monseigneur in French ("Mgr" without
superscripts makes little sense, and if "Mr" is sometimes found as an
abbreviation for "Monsieur", its standard abbreviation is "M.", and its
plural "Messieurs" is noted "MM" without any abbreviation dot or
superscript, but normally never as
On 01/11/2018 at 00:41, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>
> On 2018/11/01 03:10, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > On 31/10/2018 at 17:27, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
>
> >> When one does question the Académie about the fact, this is their
> >> reply:
> >>
> >> Le fait de placer en exposant
On 10/31/2018 3:37 PM, Marcel Schneider
via Unicode wrote:
On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 11:10 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
which, if my understanding of
On 2018/11/01 03:10, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> On 31/10/2018 at 17:27, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
>> When one does question the Académie about the fact, this is their
>> reply:
>>
>> Le fait de placer en exposant ces mentions est de convention
>> typographique ; il convient
On 10/31/2018 4:11 PM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:32:09PM -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 9:03 AM, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
A while I was localizing some application to Arabic and the developer
“helpfully” used m² for square meter, but
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 03:32:09PM -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 10/31/2018 9:03 AM, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
>
> A while I was localizing some application to Arabic and the developer
> “helpfully” used m² for square meter, but that does not work for Arabic
>
Ken Whistler wrote,
> Trying to represent all aspects of text in manuscripts,
> including handwriting conventions, as plain text is
> hopeless. There is no principled line to draw there
> before you get into arbitrary calligraphic conventions.
Very much agree. The post card in question is in
On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2018 11:10 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > > which, if my understanding of "convient" is correct, carefully does
> > > [not] quite say that it is *wrong* not to superscript, but that one should
> > > superscript
On 31/10/18 at 23:05, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> > Sad that Arabic ² and ³ are still missing.
>
> How about all the other sets of native digits?
The missing ones are hopefully already on the roadmap.
Or do you refer to the missing ² and ³ in all other native digits?
Obviously they
On 31/10/2018 at 17:27, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Preformatted Unicode superscript small letters are meeting the French
> > superscript
> > requirement, that is found in:
> >
On 31/10/2018 at 17:03, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>
> A while I was localizing some application to Arabic and the developer
> “helpfully” used m² for square meter, but that does not work for Arabic
> because there is no superscript ٢ in Unicode, so I had to contact the
> developer and ask for markup to
On 2018-10-31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> Preformatted Unicode superscript small letters are meeting the French
> superscript
> requirement, that is found in:
> http://www.academie-francaise.fr/abreviations-des-adjectifs-numeraux
> (in French). This brief article focuses on the
On 31/10/2018 at 11:21, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2018 2:38 AM, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
>
> > You could use the various hacks
> > you've discussed, with modifier letters; but that is not "encoding",
> > that is "abusing Unicode to do markup". At least, that's the
Thank you for your feedback.
On 30/10/2018 at 22:52, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > First, ARABIC LETTER SUPERSCRIPT ALEPH U+0671.
> > But it is a vowel sign. Many letters put above are called superscript
> > when explaining in English.
>
> As you say, this is a vowel sign not a superscript letter,
Responding to Julian Bradfield,
U+1D49 MODIFIER LETTER SMALL E
General Category: Letter, Modifier
Decomposition Type
Mapping: U+0065
It's a spacing superscript Latin lower case "E". It's a letter. People
spell with letters.
"One of the goals of the Consortium is to preserve humanity's
On 2018-10-31, Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 12:20 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[ as did I in private mail ]
>> The abbreviation in the postcard, rendered in
>> plain text, is "Mr".
>
> The relevant fragment of the postcard in a loose
On 2018/10/31 03:51, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 at 18:59, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
>>
>> Marcel Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> This use case is different from the use case that led to submit
>>> the L2/18-206 proposal, cited by Dr Ewell on 29/10/2018 at 20:29:
>>
>> I guess
My previous attempt to send this mail was rejected by the list as
spam. If this one will not appear on the list, would you be so kind to
forward it to the list and the listmaster?
On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 12:20 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> The abbreviation in the postcard,
> On 30 Oct 2018, at 22:50, Ken Whistler via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>> but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
>
> For what it's worth, "mgr" seems to be the usual abbreviation in Polish for
> it.
That seems to be
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:02:43PM +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote:
> On 30/10/2018 at 21:34, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode
> > wrote:
> > > E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> > > encoding and
On 10/30/2018 2:32 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
but we can't seem to agree on how to encode its abbreviation.
For what it's worth, "mgr" seems to be the usual abbreviation in Polish
for it.
--Ken
Marcel Schneider replied to Khaled Hosny:
>>> E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth encoding and
>>> using without any caveat, [...]
>>
>> Curious, what Arabic superscripts are encoded in Unicode?
>
> [...] There is the range U+FC5E..U+FC63 (presentation forms).
Arabic
On 30/10/2018 at 21:34, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> > E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> > encoding and using without any caveat, whereas when Latin script is on,
> > superscripts are
Julian Bradfield wrote:
>> in the 17ᵗʰ or 18ᵗʰ century to keep it only for ordinals. Should
>> Unicode
>
> What do you mean, for ordinals? If you mean 1st, 2nd etc., then there
> is not now (when superscripting looks very old-fashioned) and never
> has been any requirement to superscript them,
On 2018-10-30, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> Dr Bradfield just added on 30/10/2018 at 14:21 something that I didn’t
> know when replying to Dr Ewell on 29/10/2018 at 21:27:
>> The English abbreviation Mr was also frequently superscripted in the
>> 15th-17th centuries, and that didn't
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth
> encoding and using without any caveat, whereas when Latin script is on,
> superscripts are thrown into the same cauldron as underscoring.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 02:47:25 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> We are here at the line between what is pure visual encoding (e.g.
> using superscript letters), and logical encoding (as done eveywhere
> else in unicode with combining sequences; the most well known
> exceptions being for
On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:43:14 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Now what if we were future historians given the task of encoding both
> of those strings, from two different sources, and had no idea what
> those two strings were supposed to represent? Wouldn't it be best to
> preserve both
Rather than a dozen individual e-mails, I’m sending this omnibus reply
for the record, because even if here and in CLDR (SurveyTool forum and
Trac) everything has already been discussed and fixed, there is still
a need to stay acknowledging, so as not to fail following up, with
respect to the
On 2018-10-30, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> (Still responding to Ken Whistler's post)
> Do you know the difference between H₂SO₄ and H2SO4? One of them is a
> chemical formula, the other one is a license plate number. T̲h̲a̲t̲ is
> not a stylistic difference /in my book/. (Emphasis
(Still responding to Ken Whistler's post)
> The fact that I could also implement superscripting and subscripting on a
> mechanical typewriter via turning the platen up and down half a line,
also
> does not make *those* aspects of text styling plain text. either.
Do you know the difference
Ken Whistler replied,
>> could be typed on old-style mechanical
>> typewriters. Quintessential plain-text, that.
>
> Nope. Typewriters were regularly used for
> underscoring and for strikethrough, both of which
> are *styling* of text, and not plain text. The
> mere fact that some visual
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 12:20:49 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > I think this is one of the few cases where Multicode may have
> > advantages over Unicode. In a mathematical contest, aⁿ would be
> > interpreted as _a_ applied _n_ times. As to "fⁿ", ambiguity may
On 10/29/2018 8:06 PM, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
could be typed on old-style mechanical typewriters. Quintessential
plain-text, that.
Nope. Typewriters were regularly used for underscoring and for
strikethrough, both of which are *styling* of text, and not plain text.
The mere fact
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> Nevertheless, I think the use of devices like combining underlines
> and superscript letters in plain text are best avoided.
That's probably true according to the spirit of the underlying encoding
principles. But hasn't that genie already left the bottle?
People
For the case of "Mister" vs. "Magister", the (double) underlining is not
just a stylistic option but conveys semantics as an explicit abbreviation
mark !
We are here at the line between what is pure visual encoding (e.g. using
superscript letters), and logical encoding (as done eveywhere else in
On 29/10/18 20:29, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> ObMagister: I agree that trying to reflect every decorative nuance of
> handwriting is not what plain text is all about.
Agreed.
> (I also disagree with
> those who insist that superscripted abbreviations are required for
> correct spelling
Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> I like palaeographic renderings of text very much indeed, and in fact
>> remain in conflict with members of the UTC (who still, alas, do NOT
>> communicate directly about such matters, but only in duelling ballot
>> comments) about some actually salient
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 20:42:04 +
Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> I like palaeographic renderings of text very much indeed, and in fact
> remain in conflict with members of the UTC (who still, alas, do NOT
> communicate directly about such matters, but only in duelling ballot
> comments)
On 10/28/2018 11:50 PM, Martin J. Dürst
via Unicode wrote:
On 2018/10/29 05:42, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
This is no different the Irish name McCoy which can be written MᶜCoy where the raising of the c is actually just decorative, though
On Mon, Oct 29 2018 at 7:57 GMT, James Kass wrote:
> Janusz S. Bień asked,
>
>> Do you claim that in the ground-truth for HWR the
>> squiggle and raising doesn't matter?
>
> Not me!
I know, sorry if my previous mail was confusing.
> "McCoy", "M=ͨCoy", and "M-ͨCoy" are three different ways of
>
Janusz S. Bień asked,
> Do you claim that in the ground-truth for HWR the
> squiggle and raising doesn't matter?
Not me! "McCoy", "M=ͨCoy", and "M-ͨCoy" are three different ways of
writing the same surname. If I were entering plain text data from an
old post card, I'd try to keep the data
On 2018/10/29 05:42, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> This is no different the Irish name McCoy which can be written MᶜCoy where
> the raising of the c is actually just decorative, though perhaps it was once
> an abbreviation for Mac. In some styles you can see a line or a dot under the
>
On Sun, Oct 28 2018 at 20:42 GMT, Michael Everson wrote:
> This is no different the Irish name McCoy which can be written MᶜCoy
> where the raising of the c is actually just decorative, though perhaps
> it was once an abbreviation for Mac. In some styles you can see a line
> or a dot under the
The umlauts in the band name "Mötley Crüe" are decorative, yet the
difference between "Mötley Crüe" and "Motley Crue" is one of spelling.
Although the tilde in the place name "Rancho Peñasquitos" is *not*
decorative, "Rancho Peñasquitos" vs. "Rancho Penasquitos" is still a
spelling
I think that it is the _superscription_ that indicates the fact that it is an
abbreviation.
In English “þe" was written “ye” and and “yͤ” “yᵉ” and the last of these might
have a dot or a line or a squiggle underneath it, or not, and in no case was
that dot or line or squiggle either
This is no different the Irish name McCoy which can be written MᶜCoy where the
raising of the c is actually just decorative, though perhaps it was once an
abbreviation for Mac. In some styles you can see a line or a dot under the
raised c. This is purely decorative.
I would encode this as Mʳ
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 2:34 AM arno.schmitt via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> Am 28.10.2018 um 09:13 schrieb Richard Wordingham via Unicode:
> > The notation is a quite widespread format for abbreviations. the
> > first letter is normal sized, and the subsequent letter is written in
>
Also if the "combining abbreviation mark" is used only at end of a
combining sequence to transform it, we can avoid all needs of CGJ for that
mark, if the mark is itself assigned the combining class 0.
So
- abbreviating "Mister" as "M" (without the underscore below "r") becomes
- abbreviating
Le dim. 28 oct. 2018 à 18:28, Janusz S. Bień a écrit :
> On Sun, Oct 28 2018 at 15:19 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> > Given the "squiggle" below letters are actually gien distinctive
> > semantics, I think it should be encoded a combining character (to be
> > written not after a
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
