Ar 08:58 -0800 2000-10-04, scríobh Carl W. Brown:
[I]f I am using the Gaelic Latin script are there
differences such as collating sequences?
Yes, but chiefly because there are orthographic differences as well.
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port
not imagine that the collation sequences would
be the same.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2000 11:25 AM
To: Carl W. Brown
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Locale ID's again: simplified vs
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Carl W. Brown wrote:
The is not true of traditional and simplified Chinese because of the
codepoint overlap even though one might be readable by the other. If for
example, I have a traditional locale I will have han that do not exist in
the simplified locale. Big-5 to
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2000 2:04 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000, Carl W. Brown wrote:
The is not true of traditional and simplified Chinese because of the
codepoint overlap even though one might be readable
Ar 13:55 -0800 2000-10-03, scríobh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- The use of ISO 15924 for "sub-language specifications" has been removed
from the draft for the successor to RFC-1766 because there was no consensus
that the meaning and usage of these was clear.
I don't thank this means they are forbidden
I wrote this blunder:
*Spell checking* is one of these cases, that we are all quite
familiar with. If I have to write a text using traditional
hanzi in Unicode, I can tag it as "Chinese-simplified", so
that my spell-checker can assist me signaling simplified
characters that slipped in by
Jukka Korpela wrote:
Does Unicode encode traditional and simplified Chinese characters
separately, or is the difference considered as glyph variation only,
to be indicated (if desired) at higher protocol levels?
They are encoded separately, at different code points.
What you heard about
, October 04, 2000 3:05 AM
To: Unicode List
Subject: RE: Locale ID's again: simplified vs. traditional
Ar 13:55 -0800 2000-10-03, scríobh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- The use of ISO 15924 for "sub-language specifications" has been removed
from the draft for the successor to RFC-17
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does Unicode encode traditional and simplified Chinese characters
separately, or is the difference considered as glyph variation only,
to be indicated (if desired) at higher protocol levels?
Disclaimer: This is written from the view of a
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ayers, Mike wrote:
GB encoded material is simplified by definition, likewise Big5 encoded
material is traditional by definition, and Unicode
has encodings for both glyphs of a simplified/traditional
pair (note: I am
oversimplifying here,
"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
In another example Aziri (Cyrillic) and Aziri (Latin) you have no problem.
In this case you would apply such things as the Turkish dotted and dotless i
rules for case conversion.
Consider Mongolian, where there is no simple mapping between Cyrillic script and
Mongolian
From: Carl W. Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which
is part of the
new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications. However to my
amazment that do not
have separate script designations for traditional and
simplified scripts.
On 10/03/2000 12:50:37 PM "Carl W. Brown" wrote:
It seems that the proper solution is to use ISO 15924 which is part of the
new RCF-1766 sublanguage specifications. However to my amazment that do
not
have separate script designations for traditional and simplified scripts.
Two points of
Steven R. Loomis wrote:
In RFC1766 usage, "zh-tw" is often used to mean traditional chinese,
and "zh-cn" is used for simplified This occurs in places such as HTTP
headers and xml:lang tags.
No. "zh-tw" only mean Chinese used in Taiwan and "zh-cn" only mean
Chinese used in China. It
Yung-Fong "Frank" Tang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steven R. Loomis wrote:
In RFC1766 usage, "zh-tw" is often used to mean traditional chinese,
and "zh-cn" is used for simplified This occurs in places such as HTTP
headers and xml:lang tags.
No. "zh-tw" only mean Chinese used in Taiwan and
15 matches
Mail list logo
