Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

Prime for soft sign transliteration used to avoid ambiguty: apostroph is used for apostroph itself, common sign in Ukrainian or Belarusian.

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

In Ukrainian, for example, both “ь” and “`” are used. “ь” is used for softer pronounce of the preceding consonant ( тіньовий ), whilst “`” is used for splitting them, like if they were the first letter in a word, even when the next vowel sounds soft otherwise ( пом`якшення -- the last “я” sounds

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

I can show an example of use both, prime (as soft sign) and apostroph (hemisoft) in Cyrilic-based phonetic transcription (Orthoepic Dictionary of Ukrainian, http://padaread.com/?book=84816=6 http://padaread.com/?book=84816=7)

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

On 2/11/2016 6:05 AM, QSJN 4 UKR wrote: I can show an example of use both, prime (as soft sign) and apostroph (hemisoft) in Cyrilic-based phonetic transcription (Orthoepic Dictionary of Ukrainian, http://padaread.com/?book=84816=6 http://padaread.com/?book=84816=7)

RE: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

: Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign) On 9 Feb 2016, at 05:31, Asmus Freytag (t) <asmus-...@ix.netcom.com<mailto:asmus-...@ix.netcom.com>> wrote: > Without scouring the book I don't know whether there's another place in it > where something's unquest

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

On 9 Feb 2016, at 05:31, Asmus Freytag (t) wrote: > Without scouring the book I don't know whether there's another place in it > where something's unquestioningly the prime. In that case we could figure out > whether its appearance is simply the way that font does it.

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

On 2/8/2016 5:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote: It’s what I was taught as the scientific romanization for Russian and Slavic in general. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ Source? A./

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

On 2/8/2016 6:39 PM, Charlie Ruland wrote: Am 09.02.2016 schrieb Asmus Freytag (t): On 2/8/2016 5:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote: It’s what I was taught as the scientific romanization for Russian

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

It’s what I was taught as the scientific romanization for Russian and Slavic in general. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

Re: transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

Am 09.02.2016 schrieb Asmus Freytag (t): On 2/8/2016 5:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote: It’s what I was taught as the scientific romanization for Russian and Slavic in general. Michael Everson *http://www.evertype.com/ Source? A./ Look at tables 27.1 (p. 348) and 27.2 (p. 351) of Paul

transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign)

Hello, I am wondering how U+02B9 MOFIFIER LETTER PRIME made its way into the Unicode repertoire, and how it acquired its comment “transliteration of mjagkij znak (Cyrillic soft sign: palatalization)“. ISO/R 9:1954 through ISO/R 9:1986 map the mjagkij znak “ь” to the apostrophe, and so does DIN

Precomposed Cyrillic letters

From http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15169-montenegro-cyrillic.pdf, Addition of two letters from Montenegrin language, CYRILLIC script: 9. Can any of the proposed characters be encoded using a composed character sequence of either existing characters or other proposed characters? No Saying

Re: Precomposed Cyrillic letters

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: From http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15169-montenegro-cyrillic.pdf, Addition of two letters from Montenegrin language, CYRILLIC script: 9. Can any of the proposed characters be encoded using a composed character sequence

Re: Precomposed Cyrillic letters

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:37:21 -0700 Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: From http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15169-montenegro-cyrillic.pdf, Addition of two letters from Montenegrin language, CYRILLIC script: 9

Re: Precomposed Cyrillic letters

Richard Wordingham richard dot wordingham at ntlworld dot com wrote: Presumably http://cldr.unicode.org/index/survey-tool/accounts is the most relevant page for someone with credibility. However, as Montenegro has an army and a navy, you have the wrong locale. It's still waiting for a

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

2012/11/12 QSJN 4 UKR qsjn4ukr at gmail dot com wrote: Old Cyrillic letter YEST (Є) has two variants: broad (also called Yakornoye Yest) and narrow. They are saved in modern Ukrainian script (only), where U+0404/0454 UKRAINIAN IE is used for the inherited BROAD YEST and the modern

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

2013/1/29 QSJN 4 UKR qsjn4...@gmail.com I found something terrible. Sorry, I did not make a photo. That is a modern book with [http://litopys.org.ua/smotrgram/sm11.htm]-this text of Meletius Smotrytsky Grammar, but a reprint, not a faximile like I refer to. Here are the rules about using

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

I found something terrible. Sorry, I did not make a photo. That is a modern book with [http://litopys.org.ua/smotrgram/sm11.htm]-this text of Meletius Smotrytsky Grammar, but a reprint, not a faximile like I refer to. Here are the rules about using BROAD YEST and NARROW YEST. Modern publisher used

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

On 29 Nov 2012, at 08:57, QSJN 4 UKR qsjn4...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, maybe, probably. Truly different glyph is the NARROW YEST. Truly special character name has the BROAD YES, YAKORNOYE YEST, while the NARROW as well as the modern UKRAINIAN є is just IE or YEST. Well, I don't know, would you

Old Cyrillic Yest

Old Cyrillic letter YEST (Є) has two variants: broad (also called Yakornoye Yest) and narrow. They are saved in modern Ukrainian script (only), where U+0404/0454 UKRAINIAN IE is used for the inherited BROAD YEST and the modern, rectangle form of U+0415/0453 IE for the NARROW YEST. Unicode Standard

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

Telling font designers how to do their job (even if it's within Unicode's purview which I doubt) by adding new codepoints is a novel idea to say the least. Leo On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:32 AM, QSJN 4 UKR qsjn4...@gmail.com wrote: Old Cyrillic letter YEST (Є) has two variants: broad (also called

Re: Old Cyrillic Yest

QSJN 4 UKR qsjn4ukr at gmail dot com wrote: Old Cyrillic letter YEST (Є) has two variants: broad (also called Yakornoye Yest) and narrow. They are saved in modern Ukrainian script (only), where U+0404/0454 UKRAINIAN IE is used for the inherited BROAD YEST and the modern, rectangle form of U

Re: [indic] Indic Transliteration Standards in Cyrillic Greek

Cyrillic with special diacritics. If they do exist, any pointers to their Unicode representations. Thanks V -- http://www.virtualvinodh.com Vinodh, These resources will help: http://transliteration.eki.ee/pdf/Russian.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_transliteration_of_Cyrillic http

Re: [indic] Re: Indic Transliteration Standards in Cyrillic Greek

On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 3:02 PM, John Hudson j...@tiro.ca wrote: I'm sorry, I misread the original question. I'm not aware of particular Cyrillic or Greek transcription systems for Indic scripts or languages. My suspicion is that Russian systems exist, given the historic interests of Russian

Indic Transliteration Standards in Cyrillic Greek

Hi, These are several standards for transliterating Indic script to Roman characters such as IAST, ISO 15919 etc. I would like to know if any similar standards exist for expressing the Indic set in Greek Cyrillic with special diacritics. If they do exist, any pointers to their Unicode

Re: Indic Transliteration Standards in Cyrillic Greek

to use more conventional symbols (and IPA is completely unreadable for readers of other scripts than Latin, Greek or Cyrillic). The application would be to transliterate people names or toponyms in postal addresses or contact lists or on administrative forms to be used in foreign countries where

Re: CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

We've got the example of the ISO 9 standard itself. Le 5 mars 2012 22:46, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com a écrit : On 5 Mar 2012, at 20:13, Benjamin M Scarborough wrote: There is a clear precedent here that the unifications of N2463 are not necessarily the final fate of any of these

Re: CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote: I am looking for the codes or assignements status of the Cyrillic letter OE/oe (ligatured) as used in Selkup (exactly similar to the Latin pair). This character pair has been part of the registration nr. 223 (in 1998

Re: CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 19:35, Denis Jacquerye wrote: According to ftp://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2463.doc the Cyrillic Selkup OE is mapped to Latin OE: CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SELKUP O E to U+0153 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE OE CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP O E to U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE

Re: CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

Le 5 mars 2012 19:35, Denis Jacquerye moy...@gmail.com a écrit : On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote: I am looking for the codes or assignements status of the Cyrillic letter OE/oe (ligatured) as used in Selkup (exactly similar to the Latin pair

Re: CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

On 5 Mar 2012, at 20:13, Benjamin M Scarborough wrote: There is a clear precedent here that the unifications of N2463 are not necessarily the final fate of any of these characters. If the О Е letter for Selkup should be disunified from U+0152/U+0153, then a proposal needs to be submitted

CYRILLIC SMALL/CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP OE (ISO 10756:1996)

I am looking for the codes or assignements status of the Cyrillic letter OE/oe (ligatured) as used in Selkup (exactly similar to the Latin pair). This character pair has been part of the registration nr. 223 (in 1998) by ISO of the (8-bit) extended Cyrillic character set for non-Slavic languages

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

On 22 Nov 2010, at 18:55, Asmus Freytag wrote: That seems to be true for IPA as well - because already, if you use the font binding for IPA, your a's and g's will not come out right, which means you don't even have to worry about betas and chis. Not so. There is already a convention (going

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

On 19 Nov 2010, at 07:15, Peter Constable wrote: And while IPA is primarily based on Latin script, not all of its characters are Latin characters: bilabial and interdental fricative phonemes are represented using Greek letters beta and theta. IPA beta and chi behave very differently from

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

is that some of them saw the encoding of additional characters to make them work as orthographies. Again, I don’t see how that impacts this particular case. This particular case is analogous to the borrowing of Q and W into Cyrillic from Latin. By the way I understand that there are many

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

transcriptions, for one. The glyph shape for IPA beta is practically unknown in Greek. Latin capital Chi is not the same as Greek capital chi. so also there are no technical or usability reasons I’m aware of why it is problematic to represent this historic Janalif orthography using two Cyrillic

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

adequate to have characters of central importance represented using letters from a different script, Greek, it would seem reasonable if someone made the case that it's adequate to represent an historic Latin orthography using Cyrillic soft sign. I think the question can and should be asked, what

RE: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

this historic Janalif orthography using two Cyrillic characters. Btw, I suspect that calling these Latin characters is completely revisionist: if we could ask anyone that taught or used this orthography in 1930 about these characters, I suspect they would say that they are Cyrillic characters. I

RE: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of André Szabolcs Szelp AFAIR the reservations of WG2 concerning the encoding of Jangalif Latin Ь/ь as a new character were not in view of Cyrillic Ь/ь, but rather in view of its potential identity with the tone

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

On 11/18/2010 8:04 AM, Peter Constable wrote: From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of André Szabolcs Szelp AFAIR the reservations of WG2 concerning the encoding of Jangalif Latin Ь/ь as a new character were not in view of Cyrillic Ь/ь, but rather

pupil's comment: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of André Szabolcs Szelp AFAIR the reservations of WG2 concerning the encoding of Jangalif Latin Ь/ь as a new character were not in view of Cyrillic Ь/ь, but rather in view of its potential identity with the tone sign mentioned by you as well

RE: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

represented using letters from a different script, Greek, it would seem reasonable if someone made the case that it's adequate to represent an historic Latin orthography using Cyrillic soft sign. Peter -Original Message- From: Asmus Freytag [mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com] Sent

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

AFAIR the reservations of WG2 concerning the encoding of Jangalif Latin Ь/ь as a new character were not in view of Cyrillic Ь/ь, but rather in view of its potential identity with the tone sign mentioned by you as well. It is a Latin letter adapted from the Cyrillic soft sign, like the Jangalif

Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

As shown in N3916: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3916.pdf = L2/10-356, there exists a Latin letter which resembles the Cyrillic soft sign Ь/ь (U+042C/U+044C). This letter is part of the Jaꞑalif variant of the alphabet, which was used for several languages in the former Soviet Union (e.g

Re: Are Latin and Cyrillic essentially the same script?

2010-11-10 10:08, I wrote: KP As shown in N3916 ... Please read vowel instead of vocal throughout the mail. Sorry.

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Thank you for replying. On Saturday, 7 August 2010, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote: I think the alternate ending glyph is supposed to be specified in more detail than that. The example Asmus gave was U+222A UNION with serifs. Even though the exact proportions of the serifs may differ

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

On Aug 7, 2010, at 10:40 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: I'd like to see an FAQ page on What is Plain Text? written primarily by UTC officers. That might go a long way toward resolving the differences between William's interpretation of what plain text is, which people like me think is too broad,

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

John H. Jenkins wrote: The basic idea is that plain text is the minimum amount of information to process the given language in a normal way. That's a bit vague. We don't normally process languages; we read texts. Whether font or color variation is essential for understanding really depends

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters There are 256 selectors but the proposal only suggests numbering up to 16 effectively deprecating the others. Surely we want all 256? The Mongolian selectors

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Thank you for replying. On Friday 6 August 2010, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote: What you mean are artistic or stylistic variants. These have certain problems, see here for an explanation: http://www.unicode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=221#p221 A./     I have read and

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Thank you for replying. On Friday 6 August 2010, John H. Jenkins jenk...@apple.com wrote: This is another case of a solution in search of a problem. No, the problem is that one cannot at present, as far as I know, access alternate glyphs of an advanced format font from a plain text file.

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

William_J_G Overington wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com wrote: I cannot understand from that text, or otherwise at the time of writing this reply, why it would not be possible to have an alternate ending glyph for a letter e accessible from plain text using an advanced font

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and=D=A Cyrillic letters

Michael Everson On 6 Aug 2010, at 22:20, Karl Pentzlin wrote: Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 09:45 schrieb Michael Everson: ME ... In particular the implications ME for Serbian orthography would be most unwelcome. As I have outlined in the revised introduction of my proposal,

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and=D=A Cyrillic letters

verdy_p verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote: I am not convinced too. Because all what this proposal is supposed to solve is to allow an automted change of orthography so that SOME long s in old doucments using Fraktur style will become round s in some other antermediate style (like

Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

On Thursday, 5 August 2010, Kenneth Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote: I am thinking of where a poet might specify an ending version of a glyph at the end of the last word on some lines, yet not on others, for poetic effect. I think that it would be good if one could specify that in plain

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On 2010/08/05 2:56, Asmus Freytag wrote: On 8/2/2010 5:04 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at: http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

On 8/6/2010 2:03 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote: On Thursday, 5 August 2010, Kenneth Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote: I am thinking of where a poet might specify an ending version of a glyph at the end of the last word on some lines, yet not on others, for poetic effect. I think that it

Re: Accessing alternate glyphs from plain text (from Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

On Aug 6, 2010, at 3:03 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote: The standards organizations have a great opportunity to advance typography by defining some of the Latin letter plus variation selector pairs so that alternate glyphs within a font may be accessed directly from plain text. This is

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:04 schrieb ich: KP I have compiled a draft proposal: KP Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters In the meantime, I have submitted a final version to the UTC (L2/10-280), as the UTC starts upcoming Monday (2010-08-09). For those who do

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Freitag, 6. August 2010 um 11:08 schrieb Martin J. Dürst: MJD The Web may finally get to solve this problem, although it may still MJD take some time to be fully deployed. Please see http://www.w3.org/Fonts/ MJD for more details and pointers. Variation sequences are a means to support this

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 09:45 schrieb Michael Everson: ME ... In particular the implications ME for Serbian orthography would be most unwelcome. As I have outlined in the revised introduction of my proposal, there are *no* implications for Serbian orthography. Admittedly, this was a

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Donnerstag, 5. August 2010 um 12:31 schrieb William_J_G Overington: WO Yet what if one wants to use the precomposed g circumflex character? To search in the text of the Unicode standard for canonical equivalence is helpful in this case for end users as well as for font designers and for

Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 22:44 schrieb ich: KP However, in my next version, I will replace the s variants by long s variants: KP 017F FE00 ...LONG S VARIANT-1 ... STANDARD FORM KP · will be displayed long in any script variants KP 017F FE01 ...LONG S VARIANT-1 FLEXIBLE FORM (naming

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Yeah, well, I am not convinced of the merits of your proposal. Sorry. On 6 Aug 2010, at 22:20, Karl Pentzlin wrote: Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 09:45 schrieb Michael Everson: ME ... In particular the implications ME for Serbian orthography would be most unwelcome. As I have outlined

Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

For the standard form you probably don't need to add a variation selector. The codepoint for long s itself expresses exactly the semantic to represent this character as long s in ANY type style. While I'm not convinced of your variation proposal at all (on the contrary), if you write it, write it

Re: Dialects and orthographies in BCP 47 (was: Re: Draft ProposalDA to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

will decide to reunite their cultural efforts [...] and increasing their mutual cultural exchanges instead of wasting them for old nationalist reasons You're either an utmost optimist, or you have really no idea of Eastern European history, culture and spirit. :-) I doubt your described scenario

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Thank you for your reply. On Wednesday 4 August 2010, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: WO Why is it not possible specifically to request a one-storey form of lowercase letter a? I did not this, as I do not know a cultural context where the two-storey form is to be

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On Wednesday 4 August 2010, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote: However, there's no need to add variation sequences to select an *ambiguous* form. Those sequences should be removed from the proposal. Are you here talking about such things as alternate glyph styles? It depends what

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On 8/5/2010 3:47 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote: On Wednesday 4 August 2010, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote: However, there's no need to add variation sequences to select an *ambiguous* form. Those sequences should be removed from the proposal. Are you here talking about

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

I am thinking of where a poet might specify an ending version of a glyph at the end of the last word on some lines, yet not on others, for poetic effect. I think that it would be good if one could specify that in plain text. Why can't a poet find a poetic means of doing that, instead of

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On Tuesday 3 August 2010, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: Any comments are welcome. Firstly, thank you for making the document available. I have made a few comments regarding matters that I noticed. Please know that, whilst I comment on various matters, I am enthusiastic for

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters (was Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters))

On Tuesday, 3/8/10, Janusz S. Bień jsb...@mimuw.edu.pl wrote: I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is to be limited to Fraktur-like styles. Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at least part of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters (was Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters))

On 4 August 2010 09:19, William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com wrote: Answering the two questions below on the assumption that s-VS1 0073 FE00 were to be defined as a variation sequence for long s in all type styles, and without giving any opinion on the merits or otherwise of Karl's

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing systems with slightly different orthographies No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings of the Latin writing system. Regards, A. Stötzner.

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters (was Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters))

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 05:19, William_J_G Overington Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at least part of the 17th and 18th centuries. More on that by babelstone: http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/rules-for-long-s.html (Sorry for the duplicate email

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and=D=A Cyrillic =9letters (was Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation=D=A Sequences for =9Latin and Cyrillic letters))

In my opinion, adding the s+VS1 variation sequence is completely unneeded. If you really want a long s, use the code assigned to the long s. fonts or renderers should still provide a reasonnable fallback to s if the glyph is missing. This means that all existing ligatures will long s will

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote: Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing systems with slightly different orthographies No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings of the Latin writing system. The

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On 8/2/2010 5:04 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at: http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB). The final proposal is intended to be submitted

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Se=D=A quences for Latin and Cyrillic  letters

John W Kennedy wrote: On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote: Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing systems with slightly different orthographies No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings of the Latin

Dialects and orthographies in BCP 47 (was: Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

verdy_p verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote: Really, Hans, Hant, Latf, Latg could have been avoided in ISO 15924, if orthographic variants of the same languages had been encoded in the IANA database for BCP 47, independantly of the effective font style. Actually it was the

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 00:31 schrieb Christoph Päper: CP ... than making sure every instance of a letter is CP accompanied by the appropriate VS? My proposal contains the idea of implicit application of variation sequences by higher-level protocols. I will make this clearer in my next

Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation=D=A Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Asmus Freytag wrote: The Fraktur problem is one where one typestyle requires additional information (e.g. when to select long s) that is not required for rendering the same text in another typestyle. If it is indeed desirable (and possible) to create a correctly encoded string that can be

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: DS ... I don't see why DS unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061 DS is the character. This is because I take into account the implicit application of a variation sequence on a base character by a

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 08:52 schrieb William_J_G Overington: WO Please know that, whilst I comment on various matters, I am WO enthusiastic for the general thrust of your suggestion regarding WO access to alternate glyphs for Latin characters using Variation WO Selectors. This could

Re: long s (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 19:11 schrieb Janusz S. Bień: JJSB I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is JSB to be limited to Fraktur-like styles. The *variant* is applicable to situations where the character is to be displayed long when Fraktur-like styles are in

re: Dialects and orthographies in BCP 47 (was: Re: Draft Proposal=D=A to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Doug Ewell wrote: There is no formal model in the sense of a standard N-letter subtag for dialects, because the concept of a dialect is too open-ended and unsystematic. The word means different things to different people. What may be a dialect to one person might be a full-blown National

Re: Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation=D=A Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

On 8/4/2010 1:30 PM, verdy_p wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote: The Fraktur problem is one where one typestyle requires additional information (e.g. when to select long s) that is not required for rendering the same text in another typestyle. If it is indeed desirable (and possible) to create a

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner: DS ... I don't see why DS unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061 DS is the character. This is because I take into account

Re:=D=A Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation� Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Asmus Freytag If a text was initially using a round s, nothing prohibits it being rendered in Fraktur style, but even in this case, the conversion to long s will be inappropriate. So use the Fraktur round s directly. This statement makes clear that you don't understand the rules of

Re: Re:=D=A Standard fallback characters (was: Draft Proposal to add Variation� Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters)

Philipe, Text typeset in Fraktur contains more information than text typset in Antiqua. That means, there are some places where there are some (mild) ambiguities in representation in the Antiqua version. Not enough to bother a human reader who can use deep context to read the text correctly,

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On 3 Aug 2010, at 01:04, Karl Pentzlin wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at: http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB). The final proposal is intended

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 09:45 schrieb Michael Everson: ME ... In particular the implications ME for Serbian orthography would be most unwelcome. Which kind of implications do you refer to? The proposed variation sequences simply provide a more general access to typographic details, which

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

Karl Pentzlin: The proposed variation sequences simply provide a more general access to typographic details, which now can be accomplished by more complicated means like implementing locale-specific glyph selection within a font, and relying on a higher-level protocol supplying the

Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at: http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB). The final proposal is intended to be submitted for the next UTC starting next Monday

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

0073 FE00/FE01 - must be LATIN SMALL LETTER S, not LETTER B. Leo On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at: http

Re: Draft Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Karl Pentzlin karl-pentz...@acssoft.de wrote: I have compiled a draft proposal: Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters The draft can be downloaded at:  http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB

Romanian and Cyrillic

I posted this message to the message boards of Distributed Proofreaders-Europe dp.rastko.net (a joint effort of Project Rastko www.rastko.net and Project Gutenberg www.gutenberg.net), and got this response from one of the site admins. nikola wrote: Haha Romanian use Cyrillic up to 19th

Re: Romanian and Cyrillic

On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 11:29:58PM -0700, Peter Constable wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Would you need to have the same web-text [in HTML] displayed in Romanian as well as in Cyrillic script according to the reader's wishes? It could perhaps be put

Re: Question on Unicode-prevalence (general and for Cyrillic)

Peter Kirk va escriure: 2. A graduate student mentioned that it was her impression that most Cyrillic webpages (at least for Russian--her interest) are still not encoded in Unicode. (She is doing some research on the use of certain words in Russian and wanted to know how best to do the search

Question on Unicode-prevalence (general and for Cyrillic)

that it was her impression that most Cyrillic webpages (at least for Russian--her interest) are still not encoded in Unicode. (She is doing some research on the use of certain words in Russian and wanted to know how best to do the search.) Again: Has anyone looked into the situation with Cyrillic in terms

  1   2   >