Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Ewell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unapproved Characters
Here is a system that I think would work.
Consider please that there exists for the private use area
On 04/26/2002 08:06:14 AM Michael Everson wrote:
The Private Use Area is not to be classified. Anyone anywhere can use
any of its code points for anything.
Ditto.
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script
Michael replied to William Overington:
The Private Use Area is not to be classified. Anyone anywhere can use
any of its code points for anything.
Which of course includes William's right to use to them to devise a
classification scheme for the PUA. The problem he will face is in
getting
Doug Ewell said:
The supplementary planes
have existed since 1993,
Not quite right. Technically, the approval and publication of Amendment
1 (UTF-16) to 10646:1993 took place in 1996. The formal proposal which
turned into Amendment 1 was submitted by Mark Davis to WG2 in February,
1994. It
At 08:59 PM 3/18/02, Doug Ewell wrote:
You are not going to find many fonts on the Web that contain PUA
characters.
Actually, every Truetype font with Windows Symbol encoding uses the PUA.
Personally, I'd like to see a font that covers all or most
of the ConScript characters, but that seems
Curtis Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You are not going to find many fonts on the Web that contain PUA
characters.
Actually, every Truetype font with Windows Symbol encoding uses the
PUA.
Good point.
Personally, I'd like to see a font that covers all or most
of the ConScript characters,
On Sun, 17 Mar 2002, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Like all organizations, neither Unicode nor ISO have infinite resources.
Of course. I actually think both the Unicode Consortium and the ISO are
doing a fine job. The point was, if there was a problem prioritization
could solve, it still wouldn't be the
-Original Message-
From: Dan Kogai [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
As Kato pointed out, Unicode is more pro-programmers than
pro-users.
This is true of any character set. Users are not at all concerned with
how their script is stored. Most would prefer to never know about, hear
about,
Sorry for the belated response to this. I hope it is still relevant.
Patrick T. Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think you could simply use the version number of the Unicode
Standard. For example, the use of Tagalog would have been conformant
to
this proposed PUA registry until
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 08:59:15PM -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
You are not going to find many fonts on the Web that contain PUA
characters.
There are a few Shavian fonts using the ConScript PUA encoding.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive.
If you
See interpolation below:
- Original Message -
From: "William Overington" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Rick McGowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Synthetic scripts (was: Re: Private Use Agree
We should be encoding important stuff that will be a boost to endangered
cultures and languages - to preserve those cultures, languages, and
literatures; and to have a long-lasting importance.
Rick McGowan
How do you rescue a script that has a proposal but hasn't had any action in
5 years?
Esperanto has been mentioned in this thread.
As many readers will know, the twelve accented characters for Esperanto, six
uppercase and six lowercase, are included in Unicode.
This has recently had a very interesting result.
As many people know, Unicode is used in Java and Java is used in the
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is true. But unless someone formally proposes the missing
characters, they won't appear in the Unicode. Us Tolkien fans cannot be
blamed for Japanese standards organisations, I think :-)
Precisely. There is no inherent reason why formal
Rick McGowan wrote:
[snip]
I have several personal seals, and anyone can get a pesonal seal for a few
bucks. The kindly gent at any local hanko shop would be delighted to carve
anything under the sun.
Can you say more about personal seals please. What are they made of and how
are they used
Doug Ewell wrote:
Sampo has just articulated my favorite argument about so-called
artificial scripts. All writing systems are created by man; they do
not occur in nature, like mountains and trees and cats, [...]
O, no! At least one of them has a (super)natural origin: CJK ideographs came
This line that Everson quoted from Kogai made my ears prick up:
... if Tengwar be added BEFORE Ciao-Ciao's poetries and
Man-Yo-Shu become encodable in Unicode.
Huh? Can you send us a list of the precise characters lacking in Unicode
3.2 to encode the Man-Yo-Shu? That's an important work,
At 02:15 +0900 2002-03-16, Dan Kogai wrote:
I confess I enjoyed this thread of whether Tengwar should be include
in Unicode. It's fun. It's cute. But isn't this too much for
those who accepted the compromise for UNIcode? Tengwar should wait
till more critical issues are resolved. Many
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 02:58 , Rick McGowan wrote:
This line that Everson quoted from Kogai made my ears prick up:
... if Tengwar be added BEFORE Ciao-Ciao's poetries and
Man-Yo-Shu become encodable in Unicode.
Huh? Can you send us a list of the precise characters lacking in
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
For instance, there are at least 31 (official) way to spell 'Wata' of
Watanabe, a very popular Japanse family name. Only a couple of which is
in JIS0208-1990, one of many charsets Unicode based upon. Well, in this
This does not necessarily
Dan Kogai said:
Sorry. I am just a network consultant by trade (and Just Another Perl
Encode Hacker by accident :) and I know of these classical writing no
more than you do. I am just repeating what those who KNOW have told me.
Or those who *CLAIM* to know.
If you can grok
On 03/13/2002 01:33:36 PM John H. Jenkins wrote:
There is ICU, which handles most of the backend stuff. If you want to
get Apple or Microsoft to donate a renderer or fonts such that everyone
can use them, that would be greatly appreciated
OTOH FreeType is, I hear, working on OpenType
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 06:08 , Kenneth Whistler wrote:
http://www.horagai.com/www/moji/code4.htm
is a rather out-of-date diatribe against Unicode, dated 1997 (but
possibly
touched a little since then), by Kato Koiti, a known Unicode detractor.
It is flogging the truly dead horse
Dan Kogai continued:
For instance,
http://www.horagai.com/www/moji/int/kasiwa.htm
reports that in Kashiwa, Chiba, a typical suburban city with
population about 210,000, some 21,587 people needed character that was
not listed in JIS.
This long interview seems to be about, among
On Saturday, March 16, 2002, at 07:27 , Kenneth Whistler wrote:
*What* still holds true? These are just well-worn issues of itaiji
(variant forms). The characters from the little anime exhibit of
variants are, in Unicode:
U+9AD8 / U+9AD9
U+5516 / U+555E
U+9593 / U+9592
all variants of
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Jungshik Shin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
(*) My parents wanted me to name me ÷¥ (U+5F48), a classical form, but
it was not listed on the table of Kanjis allowed for names so I was
named U+5F3E.
Frankly speaking, I find it rather hard to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, John H. Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, March 15, 2002, at 11:38 AM, Dan Kogai wrote:
There are so many Watanabe-sans, Saito-san, and others whose name cannot
be spelled in Unicode.
Can you document this? You know, there's a prize offered for the first
person to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Ben Monroe wrote:
As it is a personal spelling, I never expected
Unicode to map a code point to this character to me.
For those not following the Japanese in the UTF-8, Ben's name
is Monryuu Ben in kanji. This is a sound-based name coinage
Stefan Persson or someone said...
Is there any chance that Tengwar and Cirth might become parts of the UCS? I
know that they have been proposed for inclusion, but all proposed characters
don't have to be included in the standard...
Of the insiders, some are strongly for it and have said so,
At 09:35 -0800 2002-03-13, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The JTC1 Member Bodies, however, do not represent an industrial
consortium. The goal of the Universal Character Set is to represent
all the world's writing systems.
Yes, and perhaps the
At 16:44 -0500 2002-03-13, James E. Agenbroad wrote:
Perhaps I'm having a senior moment; what is ConScript? I didn't find it
in either index to 3.0. Is there a write-up in the Unicode web page you
can point me to?
http://www.evertype.com/standards/csur/
--
Michael Everson *** Everson
At 09:35 -0800 2002-03-13, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
The UCA does not handle collation for all of the currently supported
languages in various projects.
The UCA template offers a default collation for each script, however.
Not that the higher ups are spending a lot of money on Old
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 12:35:10AM -0800, Rick McGowan wrote:
If a script disappears because the community who uses it decides that it's
not worth using since no software supports it (or ever will support it),
that would be a sad situation.
They can probably either create a font
At 05:34 -0600 2002-03-14, David Starner wrote:
And if it was really important, why weren't the characters that Native
American languages use encoded precomposed?
There are too many of them, and while precomposition is still easier
for fonts and input methods, in the long term it won't be that
At 08:14 -0500 2002-03-14, John Cowan wrote:
It would be easy to sketch the arguments:
1) Involving Unicode with That Elvish Stuff will bring it into
contempt and ridicule. We don't need this.
Nonsense. Contempt and ridicule by whom? The millions and millions of
readers worldwide of
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
1) Involving Unicode with That Elvish Stuff will bring it into contempt
and ridicule. We don't need this.
It will also bring visibility to Unicode work, and goodwill on behalf of
the synthetic language/script community. It offers us the possibility of
At 20:16 +0200 2002-03-14, Sampo Syreeni wrote:
It would seem like any reasoning strong enough to get us out of this
will have to bring practical/profitability reasons into the picture,
and beyond that, Elvish simply sells. As does Klingon.
Klingon users don't use the script for anything but
At 08:22 3/14/2002, Michael Everson wrote:
Nonsense. Contempt and ridicule by whom? The millions and millions of
readers worldwide of Tolkien's work who admire and appreciate his literary
and linguistic achievement? Or by some dour-faced accountant Marley
chained to his stockholders'
On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
Klingon users don't use the script for anything but decorative gifs on
their web sites, so Klingon was rejected.
Known and understood. I brought it up mainly because it *is* a writing
system, it *could* be used, and if we bring in practical/commercial
John Hudson said:
I am concerned, though, that at the end of the day the
phrase 'Unicode is a plain text computer encoding standard that includes
languages spoken by Elves' *sounds* daft, even if we eventually reckon it
not to be.
All a matter of astute marketing. If we have to get down
Sampo Syreeni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I.e. an assumption is at work, here, telling us to disregard synthetic
scripts as somehow inferior to natural ones. We might say, then,
that
any script purposefully built (vs. decentrally evolved) is not
suitable
for encoding. If I'm not mistaken, this
Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Klingon users don't use the script for anything but decorative gifs
on their web sites, so Klingon was rejected.
I have a suspicion, and I could be wrong, that although this fact was
ample justification for the rejection of Klingon, there are a fair
Um,
What I think is that *I* for one am certainly not going to invest any
effort in pseudo-coding scripts in a PreScript Unicode Registry.
The work to get scripts proposed and encoded is enough. If someone is
interested in a script, and wants to build fonts for it based on
script proposals,
At 18:45 -0600 2002-03-12, David Starner wrote:
Would it even be *legal* to
include those characters (referring to U+00A9 COPYRIGHT SIGN)?
One journal written in [Quenya] in Tengwar asked a lawyer that question,
and was told that it was completely legal for them to use the language
and
At 19:01 -0500 2002-03-12, John Cowan wrote:
Stefan Persson scripsit:
Is there any chance that Tengwar and Cirth might become parts of the UCS? I
know that they have been proposed for inclusion, but all proposed characters
don't have to be included in the standard...
Of the insiders, some
From: William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The use of this hexadecimal point technique would allow characters from
several different character sets to be used in the same plain text file.
You do enjoy making things complicated\, William. :-)
This whole system is prety much not needed, since
Michael Everson scripsit:
Who's strongly against it?'re perfectly valid scripts. They
I don't recall any names, but I definitely remember that some people
feel it's trivializing Unicode, and a waste of resources that could
be spent on Real World, if rarely used, scripts.
--
John Cowan
At 08:58 -0500 2002-03-13, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
Who's strongly against it?'re perfectly valid scripts. They
I don't recall any names, but I definitely remember that some people
feel it's trivializing Unicode, and a waste of resources that could
be spent on Real World,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 07:06:12AM -0800, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
I
think it is entirely reasonable to look at rarely used scripts and fictional
scripts (both of which member companies are unlikely to implement for
reasons I doubt I need to go into here?) and categorize them a lower
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, William Overington wrote:
Here is a system that I think would work.
Consider please that there exists for the private use area the concept of
the hexadecimal point. The term hexadecimal point is similar to the
concept of a decimal point, the difference being that a
At 07:06 -0800 2002-03-13, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
But, devil's advocate -- since Unicode is an industrial consortium which
must ultimately answer to its members (and whose representatives must
ultimately answer to their superiors in terms of budgeting that $12,000!), I
think it is
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure. That's been done, and now almost everything not rarely-used or
fictional has been encoded.
Still stuff on the roadmap. :-)
After that, perhaps Unicode can takle a step back and start working on
supporting its members and helping them implement what
Unicode should be concerned about how people perceive it. And how those
higher ups who approve the budget money to belong to Unicode perceive
things like Tengwar (do any of the member companies plan to add locale
information for Elvish regions, collation, fonts, or anything else?).
Not that I
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
[snip]
(In truth neither of us has had much time to process new registrations
lately. Arse longa, vita brevis.)
[snip]
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,
At 09:57 -0700 2002-03-13, Tom Gewecke wrote:
Not that I have seen so far. Although Tengwar and Cirth, unlike many
fictional scripts, *are* connected to a significant money machine, namely 3
feature films over three years, the first of which grossed $350 million in
its first 3 weeks.
Or unlike
At 08:44 -0800 2002-03-13, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure. That's been done, and now almost everything not rarely-used or
fictional has been encoded.
Still stuff on the roadmap. :-)
Yep. If you count the number of scripts roadmapped to be
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The JTC1 Member Bodies, however, do not represent an industrial
consortium. The goal of the Universal Character Set is to represent
all the world's writing systems.
Yes, and perhaps the proposals can start there, then.
If accepted into the standard,
James E. Agenbroad scripsit:
Arse longa, vita brevis.
I have a little Greek but no Latin, but should that be Ars longa ...?
Of course, but I was punning.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:44:13AM -0800, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sure. That's been done, and now almost everything not rarely-used or
fictional has been encoded.
Still stuff on the roadmap. :-)
What's left on the roadmap that isn't rarely
From: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my eyes, part of the success of Unicode is that it has every
character one could need, and if it doesn't, then it will next version.
If you want to make Unicode into a purely commercial standard, then you
may lose some of the major Unicode enthusiasts
Michka,
The fact
that there is no member companhy that fully implements all of Unicode has go
to be staicking in more craws that just mine.
Ulp. Craw-staicking must be painful. ;-)
But I think people may need to come to the realization that Unicode
may have exceeded the point where we can
Michka,
I am mentioning that each person there works for a company which has its
greatest interest in seeinf developed what they plan to sell. The fact that
the UTC itself is filled with linguists and other such specialists is a very
good thing for other scripts, but I suspect that many of
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
Um,
What I think is that *I* for one am certainly not going to invest any
effort in pseudo-coding scripts in a PreScript Unicode Registry.
The work to get scripts proposed and encoded is enough. If someone is
interested in a script, and wants
Just to complete my thanks (now that I've received the digest), thanks
too to Michael Everson for his comments, and John Hudson for the
typographer's viewpoint on this suggestion.
On the other subject that has been zipping about under this heading:
I asked about ConScript only because it was
At 05:58 3/13/2002, Patrick T. Rourke wrote:
True, but many scholarly communities are small enough that their needs
might not be of interest to type designers with a wider targeted audience
(like Mr. Hudson), and so depend largely upon small typographers, even
amateurs to provide their type.
A couple of quick questions for folks:
One effect of Unicode Consortium's rigorous proposal/review policy is that
while a particular script or group of characters may not be adopted into
Unicode for a couple of years after it is proposed, font makers usually
don't get around to creating the
Patrick Rourke scripsit:
Would it be a misuse of the PUA to come up with a private agreement within a
community to assign certain codepoints in the PUA to characters that have
been proposed to the Unicode Consortium, but not yet approved, so that font
designers and others in that community
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Patrick Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 12 mars 2002 21:45
Subject: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unapproved Characters
In general, no. If there is a fair chance that something will become
part
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:00:44AM +0100, Stefan Persson wrote:
Is there any chance that Tengwar and Cirth might become parts of the UCS?
Michael Everson seems to think there is. As Michael Everson has been the
driving force behind many of the scripts in Unicode, he should know.
Would it even
Back to Patrick's original question. Warning: this post contains
nothing about Klingon, or even Tengwar.
Patrick Rourke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One effect of Unicode Consortium's rigorous proposal/review policy is
that
while a particular script or group of characters may not be adopted
into
At 20:41 3/12/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
There's no reason it has to be that way. Proposed glyphs are posted on
the Unicode Web site months in advance of their go live date, even
before the beta period, largely for this reason. I'm sure Unicode-aware
type designers like John Hudson don't wait
71 matches
Mail list logo
