In a message dated 2001-02-25 16:02:11 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Peter)
>>> An alphabet is a type of writing system, something that is implemented
for
>>> a particular language. Certainly Latin is the name of a language while
>>> Roman is not, and so "Latin alphabet"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In a message dated 2001-02-20 09:53:50 Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > An alphabet is a type of writing system, something that is implemented for
> > a particular language. Certainly Latin is the name of a language while
> > Roman is not, and
Hi, William,
I have to admit that I really haven't looked carefully at your
transformation techniques and their intended purpose. But it strikes me that
you might be re-inventing the wheel. A number of schemes exist for squeezing
wide bit patterns into narrow bit streams. UTF-8 has been adopted b
Cher Ken,
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> This was also subjected to a major revision in the just-completed UTC meeting.
> These actions were taken to make it clear to everyone that use of a 32-bit
> encoding form is *not* inconsistent with a claim of compliance to the Unicode
> Standard, now that
At 21:25 -0800 2001-02-20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And perhaps the Mac people think of MacRoman as "8-bit ASCII."
No, we think of it as Mac Roman.
--
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Mob +353 8
ROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrogate space in
Unicode)
> The following statements have been made by participants in this thread.
>
> 1.
>
> A few days ago I said the
128 wrongs don't make a right...
;-)
I see books and documents all the time that refer to writing out
ASCII files when they really mean plaintext. Usually they don't
know which code page they are generating.
ASCII is a very ambiguous term these days...
tex
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:29:17 -0800 (GMT-0800), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
>On 02/20/2001 11:18:40 AM Tobias Hunger wrote:
>
>>Looks like David was quoting me. I am working on Babylon and wanted to
>make
>>clear that it is not unicode conformant as its API uses 32bit wide
>characters
>>which viola
On 02/20/2001 11:48:07 PM DougEwell2 wrote:
>In a message dated 2001-02-20 09:53:50 Pacific Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> An alphabet is a type of writing system, something that is implemented
for
>> a particular language. Certainly Latin is the name of a language while
>> Ro
I wrote:
>> Even 8-bit ASCII is a correct term meaning ISO-8859-1.
>
> I would question that. Understandable, yes, but not really correct.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, it *is* correct. ANSI X.3 (which has a new name these days) in fact
> did define an 8-bit American Standard Code for In
In a message dated 2001-02-20 09:53:50 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> An alphabet is a type of writing system, something that is implemented for
> a particular language. Certainly Latin is the name of a language while
> Roman is not, and so "Latin alphabet" is correct whil
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Even 8-bit ASCII is a correct term meaning ISO-8859-1.
>
> I would question that. Understandable, yes, but not really correct.
In the computer culture I grew up, 8-bit ASCII meant CP437. Every author
called the CP437 table that was available
Paul Keinänen said:
> >[86-M8] Motion: Amend Unicode 3.1 to change the Chapter 3, C1 conformance
> >clause to read "A process shall interpret Unicode code units (values) in
> >accordance with the Unicode transformation format used." (passed)
>
> While this wording makes it possible to handle any
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 19:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is something that UTC should clean up because C1 is obsolete. In fact,
> UTC just took that action when they met a couple of weeks ago:
Wow, that's great news for me. I am currently very involved with my studies
and other project
Tobias Hunger said:
>
> Looks like David was quoting me. I am working on Babylon and wanted to make
> clear that it is not unicode conformant as its API uses 32bit wide characters
> which violates clause 1 of Section 3.1.
No longer, as Peter pointed out.
> Babylon can im-/export UTF-8/16/32
On 02/20/2001 11:18:40 AM Tobias Hunger wrote:
>Looks like David was quoting me. I am working on Babylon and wanted to
make
>clear that it is not unicode conformant as its API uses 32bit wide
characters
>which violates clause 1 of Section 3.1.
This is something that UTC should clean up because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Even 8-bit ASCII is a correct term meaning ISO-8859-1.
>
> I would question that. Understandable, yes, but not really correct.
No, it *is* correct. ANSI X.3 (which has a new name these days) in fact
did define an 8-bit American Standard Code for Information Inter
On 02/20/2001 12:33:04 PM John Hudson wrote:
>The only thing that I insist on is that we maintain the distinction
between
>Roman and roman.
Which is?
>I wonder though, Peter, about your suggestion that '"Latin script" is less
>acceptable since "Latin" suggests something constrained to the lan
The following statements have been made by participants in this thread.
1.
A few days ago I said there was a "widespread belief" that Unicode is a
16-bit-only character set that ends at U+. A corollary is that the
supplementary characters ranging from U+1 to U+10 are either
little-k
On 02/20/2001 10:03:35 AM DougEwell2 wrote:
>> A nit to pick: It's the latin alphabet, not roman. Roman is a kind of
>> typeface, contrasting to sans serif aka grotesque.
>
>True. I have also heard "roman" used to mean the opposite of italic.
An alphabet is a type of writing system, somethin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 20 February 2001 17:03, you wrote:
> In a message dated 2001-02-20 06:18:34 Pacific Standard Time,
> > >into a new library called 'Babylon'. It will provide all the
> > > functionality defined in the Unicode standard (it is not Unicode bu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 02/19/2001 08:05:49 PM David Starner wrote:
>
> >It will provide all the functionality
> >defined in the Unicode standard (it is not Unicode but ISO 10646 compliant
> >as it uses 32bit wide characters internally) and is written in C++.
>
> Eh? Unicode has no aver
Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2001-02-20 04:21:49 Pacific Standard Time,
Funilly, the message I got is stamped 03:36:27 PST...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > A nit to pick: It's the latin alphabet, not roman. Roman is a kind of
> > typeface, contrasting to sans serif aka grotes
In a message dated 2001-02-20 04:21:49 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> A little out of date, but describing correctly the state of art in 1991
> before the merger.
Agreed, but the example was from Windows 2000. It should at least be current
through Unicode 2.1.
> Even 8
In a message dated 2001-02-20 06:18:34 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >With the Unicode-related functions in Prague growing out of size, I moved
> them
> >into a new library called 'Babylon'. It will provide all the functionality
> >defined in the Unicode standard (it is n
until one does extensive
reading on the website (or in the book).
Patrick Rourke
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: Perception that Unicode is 16-bit (was: Re: Surrog
On 02/19/2001 08:05:49 PM David Starner wrote:
>With the Unicode-related functions in Prague growing out of size, I moved
them
>into a new library called 'Babylon'. It will provide all the functionality
>defined in the Unicode standard (it is not Unicode but ISO 10646 compliant
as
>it uses 32bit
Doug Ewell wrote:
> A few days ago I said there was a "widespread belief" that Unicode is a
> 16-bit-only character set that ends at U+. A corollary is that the
> supplementary characters ranging from U+1 to U+10 are either
> little-known or perceived to belong to ISO/IEC 10646 on
Guys,
Can we put this thread on a constructive footing? I am sure there is
lots of outdated and/or incorrect information out there and I would
like to preempt its being identified via numerous emails here.
If the belief is there
are misperceptions that need to be corrected, how should the
proble
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 05:42:41PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A few days ago I said there was a "widespread belief" that Unicode is a
> 16-bit-only character set that ends at U+. A corollary is that the
> supplementary characters ranging from U+1 to U+10 are either
> little-
A few days ago I said there was a "widespread belief" that Unicode is a
16-bit-only character set that ends at U+. A corollary is that the
supplementary characters ranging from U+1 to U+10 are either
little-known or perceived to belong to ISO/IEC 10646 only, not to Unicode.
At lea
31 matches
Mail list logo
