On 6/20/2012 8:09 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Ken Whistlerk...@sybase.com wrote:
I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
people might consider to be graphemes.
I
On 21 Jun 2012, at 04:09, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote:
I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
people might consider to be graphemes.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
But the point is not just the sequence, but also the name for it. What do
you propose?
Well I couldn't propose a name conforming to the naming rules without
revealing what was munged up, could I? :-)
On Thu, Jun 21,
OK. Will they always be in NFC?
To apply Ken's dictume to this case:
That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
Unless it's excluded from the start, anytime you limit it, when the time
comes you need something like that, you have to invent a new
On 06/21/2012 01:45 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
OK. Will they always be in NFC?
To apply Ken's dictume to this case:
That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
Unless it's excluded from the start, anytime you limit it, when the time
comes you need something
On 6/21/2012 7:51 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 06/21/2012 01:45 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
OK. Will they always be in NFC?
To apply Ken's dictume to this case:
That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
Unless it's excluded from the start, anytime you
On 6/21/2012 2:56 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
But the point is not just the sequence, but also the name for it. What do
you propose?
Well I couldn't propose a name conforming to the naming rules without
revealing what
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
U+ MARK D A V I S :) :) ;)
(incidentally, it would be equivalent to the more pithy U+ MARK DAVIS
as spaces are ignored in character names... )
Heh -- don't you think that should be DAVIS MARK? :-)
Precedents
All current named sequences appear to be each a single grapheme. That
seems like it should always be the case. If I'm right, should UAX #34
say this.
On 6/20/2012 3:22 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
All current named sequences appear to be each a single grapheme. That
seems like it should always be the case.
Possibly, but keep in mind that neither the Unicode Standard nor UAX #29
in particular
define what a grapheme is. UAX #29 specifies an
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote:
I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
people might consider to be graphemes.
I submit that the following sequence shall be allotted
11 matches
Mail list logo
