From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of John H. Jenkins
>> I am hoping to submit a document to the Unicode Technical Committee in the
>> hope that the Unicode Technical Committee will institute a Public Review.
> I don't believe that the UTC will instit
On Jun 7, 2010, at 2:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> I am hoping to submit a document to the Unicode Technical Committee in the
> hope that the Unicode Technical Committee will institute a Public Review.
>
I don't believe that the UTC will institute a Public Review on this proposal
bec
On Monday 7 June 2010, Erkki I. Kolehmainen wrote:
> The Public Reviews are organized for relevant items, for which there is a
> great deal of expressed interest. In my opinion and recollection, your
> proposal doesn't qualify for this.
Thank you for replying.
Public Reviews are instituted
e-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of William_J_G Overington
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 11:49 AM
To: unicode@unicode.org; Mark E. Shoulson
Subject: Re: Overloading Unicode
On Saturday 5 June 2010, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> It isn't and should not be the Unicode Consortium's job
On Saturday 5 June 2010, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> It isn't and should not be the Unicode Consortium's job to sort through
> incoming ideas and decide which ones are nifty enough to encode.
> Unicode isn't here to make your dreams come true. It's here to encode what's
> there and to enable
On 2010-06-07, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> Spoiling the whole opportunity just because the word virus has been mentioned
> is very unfair.
As has been pointed out on countless (I can't be bothered to count
them) occasions, any virus issue is secondary to the issue that your
proposal is entir
On Saturday 5 June 2010, Doug Ewell wrote:
> In particular, both ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 and the Unicode Consortium and its
> Technical Committee have the right to decide that executable machine
> languages are not in scope for ISO/IEC 10646 and the Unicode Standard.
Your sentence states what i
On Sunday 6 June 2010, Robert Abel wrote:
> On 2010/06/05 15:38, William_J_G Overington wrote:
>> I feel that the encoding of a portable interpretable object code into
>> Unicode could be an infrastructural step forward towards great possibilities
>> for the future.
> And yet you have not mana
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Robert Abel wrote:
> Suddenly many programs would have to skim through all text they receive so
> they don't show a big swastika when opening mail from strangers for example.
Not that I'm for this proposal, but you'd be amazed what you can do
with ASCII art.
--
K
On 2010/06/05 15:38, William_J_G Overington wrote:
I feel that the encoding of a portable interpretable object code into
Unicode could be an infrastructural step forward towards great
possibilities for the future.
And yet you have not managed to list a single merit of your portable,
interpretab
On 6 Jun 2010, at 06:17, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Unicode isn't here to make your dreams come true. It's here to encode what's
> there and to enable people to do what they've already been doing, not what
> you think it would be cool if they did.
There are grey areas. We all know that Latin is
On 06/05/2010 07:18 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
"William_J_G Overington"
wrote:
I feel that the encoding of a portable interpretable object code into
Unicode could be an infrastructural step forward towards great
possibilities for the future.
And I think therein lies the problem. It's tempting to
"SS" wrote:
There will need to be explanations for a scalable plan.
However, yes it is in use today, though not by the majority (yet).
ie, u and uu matras legation is in contemporary (majority) use.
Non legated u and uu are also in use, but by minority at present.
Also, non-legated use of u an
norm before it was changed to
legated form in or arround 1700AD.
Sinnathurai
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell"
To: "Unicode Mailing List"
Cc: "SS"
Sent: 05 June 2010 17:35
Subject: Re: Overloading Unicode
"SS" wrote:
To the point,
I wrote:
It is not discrimination, fair or unfair, if you submit a proposal for
something that is not generally accepted to be in scope for the
Standard, and the proposal is rejected on those grounds.
Well, of course, it would be "fair discrimination."
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, U
I wrote:
The common thread is for some folks to regard the Unicode Standard as
a vehicle for advancing their own personal agenda -- promoting script
reform, extending the understood meaning of "plain text," or changing
the way people count.
Replace "extending the understood meaning of 'plain
"SS" wrote:
To the point, There are usage samples, there were/are
publications/magazines even run by the then leader of the current
chief minister of Tamil Nadu state.
There are usage samples. Widespread!, this will be done eventually as
with other rollbacks of the past, in a controlled man
On Friday 4 June 2010, Doug Ewell wrote:
> William Overington wrote:
>
> > [I]f the idea of the portable interpretable object code gathers support,
> > then maybe the defined scope of the standards will become extended.
Well, yes.
Later in the same post Doug wrote.
> The common thread i
y linearly and also there is not a requirement for complex rendering,
contary to contemporary display.
Sinnathurai
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell"
To:
Sent: 04 June 2010 23:12
Subject: Overloading Unicode
I've noticed a common thread this week.
Sinnathurai Sri
I've noticed a common thread this week.
Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:
> Allow linear display [of Tamil], when a font is designed for that
> purpose. (The other is complex rendered contemporary display). Linear
> display can be used for some time to come, while the Government passes
> a decree for a "
20 matches
Mail list logo
