> I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community are:
> 1) truly unhappy with their current fonts, and
> 2) eagerly awaiting encoding so that they can use supplementary character
> fonts, and
> 3) will upgrade software as needed to accomplish #2
If you check out the Shavian group on gr
Michael \(michka\) Kaplan scripsit:
> As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis the
> "potential" roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything else.
Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
isn't true. Michael Everson is more than o
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis
the
> > "potential" roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything
else.
>
> Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
> isn't true. Michael Everson is
From: "John H. Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, there is a small but non-zero Shavian user community, and a
> number of fonts are available, some of them very pretty.
Of this I have no doubt -- but this was true of Klingon, also.
I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community ar
At 12:38 PM -0700 7/4/01, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
>I would welcome evidence that there are in fact supplementary character
>fonts that will be produced, and of course evidence that the "user
>community" would actually have the software needed to use these fonts or
>input methods to type the
From: "Richard Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> now, I know of other phonemic alphabets for English ... e.g., I think
> Ben Franklin invented one, ... and I have one of my own. Are any of
> these slated for encoding too?
Fictional scripts have been, are, and will likely continue to be a constant
sour
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
> >Michael Everson wrote:
> >>
> >> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
> >> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
> >> next meeting of WG2.
> >
> >Hi Michael
At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
>Michael Everson wrote:
>>
>> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
>> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
>> next meeting of WG2.
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>I'm new to the idea that anyone would
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
> next meeting of WG2.
Hi Michael,
I'm new to the idea that anyone would care to have Shavian encoded. Will
you enlighten me?
Bes
UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
next meeting of WG2.
--
Michael Everson
In a message dated 2001-06-22 15:53:43 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Y'all happy about Shavian being encoded?
Has it been? I know the proposal has been out there for several years, but
neither the Unicode site nor the WG2 site has any updated information to
indicate it
"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
> I warned my clients not to use
> surrogates with Oracle 8.x data bases. I also can not see that they could
> be so short sighted not to develop a full UTF-8 encoder. If MS can put
> surrogate support into Windows 2000, then they can put it into Oracle 8.0.
> I am sure
"Carl W. Brown" wrote:
> Jianping,
>
> > In fact, Oracle 8.0 development started in 1992 and it was
> > released in 1994,
> > which should be much earlier than NT 5.0.
> >
> Back then I was still using Oracle 7. Thank you for correcting me. What
> made you chose UTF-8 back in 1992?
>
Oracle
Jianping,
> In fact, Oracle 8.0 development started in 1992 and it was
> released in 1994,
> which should be much earlier than NT 5.0.
>
Back then I was still using Oracle 7. Thank you for correcting me. What
made you chose UTF-8 back in 1992?
Is part of the problem that you use UCS-2 for CLOB
Peter,
>
> >6) UTF-16X (also named UTF-16S or UTF-16F) is definitely humor,
> although I
> >am probably not the only one to think that it is technically more
> "serious"
> >than UTF-8S.
>
> I didn't get the impression that it was presented with humour in mind. I
> didn't read the original message
On 06/25/2001 02:13:02 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>5) UTF-32S is a borderline case. I am quite sure that it was proposed with
>tongue in cheek...
No, it was proposed in all seriousness in the same document in which Oracle
and friends proposed UTF-8s.
>6) UTF-16X (also named UTF-16S or UTF-16F)
* Michael Everson
|
| One source (Orie Endo) says that the script has 1000-1500 characters.
| Then he says it has about 500.
Uh, no, not really. She says:
"According to the work of Chinese researchers thus far, the script
is thought to be comprised of 1000-1500 characters. [...] When
re
(sneg)
V jbhyq hfr snegf sbe npebalzf.
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!;
$B08@h(B: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Cc:
$BF|;~(B: 01/06/26 0:36
$B7oL>(B: Re: Playing with Unicode (was: Re: UTF-17)
>At 10:13 AM 6/25/01, Otto Stolz wrote:
>>Ye
At 10:13 AM 6/25/01, Otto Stolz wrote:
>Yet, I acknowledge the need to clearly mark humorous UTF propositions
>for the unsuspicious. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enclose their
>respective acronyms between \u202B and \u202C. This would be enough
>hinting on the skewed nature of such suggestions wh
At 11:42 -0700 2001-06-25, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>From what I have seen, there is some question whether Nushu should
>just be treated as a cipher of the existing Han characters.
Or maybe it's just a dictionary.
>The
>analytic lists seem to consist of lists of glyphs, each equated to
>a standa
At 15:31 -0700 2001-06-25, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Thanks for the pointer. Michael Everson ought now to have enough information
>to put a reasonable entry in the Roadmap. It is not yet ready for
>encoding yet, clearly, and sounds like it could have a numerosity
>from something like 600 character
At 22:27 +0200 2001-06-25, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>* Lars Marius Garshol
>|
>| Nushu isn't mentioned there. What is the status of that with regard to
>| encoding it in Unicode?
>
>* Kenneth Whistler
>|
>| It's up in the air.
>
>I can understand why that would be so, but shouldn't the roadmap s
explicit use, I know how to prioritize it.
Carl
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: UTF-17
>
>
Lars Marius Garshol asked:
> * Kenneth Whistler
> |
> | It's up in the air.
>
> I can understand why that would be so, but shouldn't the roadmap say
> so? I would think it would be useful for it to do so.
Yes, I think it would be.
>
> | From what I have seen, there is some question whether
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Oh yeah, well, I can be more tongue-in-cheek than all of you. I've
> already
> > implemented it.
Quick, quick. Patent it and then "open-source" it. It will be unstoppable.
YA
* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| Nushu isn't mentioned there. What is the status of that with regard to
| encoding it in Unicode?
* Kenneth Whistler
|
| It's up in the air.
I can understand why that would be so, but shouldn't the roadmap say
so? I would think it would be useful for it to do so.
| F
> >A proposal needs a definition, though:
> >
> > UTF would mean "Unicode Transformation Format"
> > utf would mean "Unicode Terrible Farce"
>
> untenable total figment?
unable to focus?
utf twisted form?
YA
What do you understand Nushu to be?
--
Michael Everson
Lars M. asked:
> * Michael Everson
> |
> | Have you seen the really cool new "Not the Roadmap" page? (See
> | http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/ucs-roadmap.html)
>
> Nushu isn't mentioned there. What is the status of that with regard to
> encoding it in Unicode?
It's up in the air.
For th
In a message dated 2001-06-25 2:24:36 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> To avoid possible misunderstandings, such as regarding Doug's Unicode
> Compression Kludge as a duck, acronyms should continue being written
> in upper-case letters.
I hadn't thought of that possibility,
* Michael Everson
|
| Have you seen the really cool new "Not the Roadmap" page? (See
| http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/ucs-roadmap.html)
Nushu isn't mentioned there. What is the status of that with regard to
encoding it in Unicode?
--Lars M.
* Marco Cimarosti
|
| 1) UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 are the only three real EXISTING Unicode
| Transformation Formats. They are official and part of the Unicode standard.
* Elliotte Rusty Harold
|
| What about ISO-10646-UCS-2 and ISO-10646-UCS-4 as used in XML? Where
| do they fit in? Are they
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> What about ISO-10646-UCS-2 and ISO-10646-UCS-4 as used in XML? Where
> do they fit in? Are they only part of ISO-10646 and not Unicode? or
> are they identical to UTF-16 and UTF-32? or something else?
I didn't include them just because they don't start with "UTF",
At 11:13 AM +0200 6/25/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Hallo.
>
>I am one of those who started this childish joke of introducing implausible
>"UTF-..." acronyms at nearly every post.
>
>I found that the joke is getting very fun but also that it may be starting
>confusing people, so I fill compelled to
Otto Stolz wrote:
> Yet, I acknowledge the need to clearly mark humorous UTF propositions
> for the unsuspicious. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enclose their
> respective acronyms between \u202B and \u202C. This would be enough
> hinting on the skewed nature of such suggestions while still
> indi
Hallo.
I am one of those who started this childish joke of introducing implausible
"UTF-..." acronyms at nearly every post.
I found that the joke is getting very fun but also that it may be starting
confusing people, so I fill compelled to quit joking for a moment and make
clear which ones are t
Am 2001-06-23 um 14:40 h EDT hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] geschrieben:
> To keep well-meaning people from misinterpreting humorous UTF proposals as
> serious, while still allowing the levity to flow freely, I hereby propose
> that UTFs proposed in a non-serious light be indicated in lower-case letters
>
By the way:
> In UTF-17, for example, the Han character sequence
> ('17'), would be converted to:
>
> <38 30 31 31 31 36 30 31 38 30 31 30 37 30 30 33>
Close, but not quite. Try:
<38 30 30 35 31 35 30 31 38 30 30 34 37 30 30 33>
> Because all UTF-17 bytes are in the range 0x30..0x38, t
> Did anyone already proposed an *UTF-17S*, where astral
> characters are encoded with a 16-byte sequence?
Actually this would be ideal for my astrological database
programmed in FORTH. UTF-16 sorting compatibility is
essential for my application. Due to a five character file name
limit I'll have
At 12:29 PM 6/23/2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> > To keep well-meaning people from misinterpreting humorous UTF proposals as
> > serious, while still allowing the levity to flow freely, I hereby propose
> > that UTFs proposed in a non-serious light be indicat
At 19:07 -0700 2001-06-23, Richard Cook wrote:
>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n1688/n1688.htm
>
>Were you hanging around with Ed Pulleyblank?
Dunno what you mean. Pullyblank was interestd in connections between
Sino-Tibetan and Indo-European. What has that to do with Sinaitic?
--
Mi
Roozbeh Pournader scripsit:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Carl W. Brown wrote:
>
> > If they like length maybe we could encode UTF-32 in '1' and '0' characters
> > for a fixed 21 byte encoding.
>
> Is this a record? UTF-168?
No, no. It's just an extension of UTF-32, so it should be called UTF-33.
--
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 14:52 -0700 2001-06-22, Yves Arrouye wrote:
> >Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
>
> I think UTF-11digit would be clearly sarcastic. UTF-17, well, I don't
> know. I've been deleting the threads. Not my area.
>
> Didj'all like
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm never ashamed of perfectly good code I've written to fulfill a
humorous
> requirement. I'm only ashamed of badly written code, or code that
implements
> a bad idea that someone else thinks is a good idea.
The latter is kind of the worry I had -- a long time ago I
In a message dated 2001-06-22 23:08:11 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Oh yeah, well, I can be more tongue-in-cheek than all of you. I've
> > already implemented it.
>
> Doug, this is one of those things one should be ashamed of, like believing
> in the April Fool's Day
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> Didj'all like the Osmanya document?
>
Yes, indeed! Thank you for making it available.
In the proposal for Osmanya (N1948.PDF) available from the
SMP Roadmap page, there is mention that this script may
still be in use even though officially abandoned by the
Somali
On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Carl W. Brown wrote:
> If they like length maybe we could encode UTF-32 in '1' and '0' characters
> for a fixed 21 byte encoding.
Is this a record? UTF-168?
roozbeh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oh yeah, well, I can be more tongue-in-cheek than all of you. I've
already
> implemented it.
Doug, this is one of those things one should be ashamed of, like believing
in the April Fool's Day message about "self serve encodings" enough to have
put together a proposal
Edward,
>
> Oh, that takes me right back...My father, who started on vacuum tube
> computers, told me about Autocoder about the time he started teaching me
> Fortran [shudder]. We were both extremely happy when he discovered APL.
>
I have seen a lot of vacuum tub computers, but the first one tha
In a message dated 2001-06-22 19:01:26 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hey guys, Ken is just kidding. He's evidently tired of the current
> plethora of ways to represent Unicode let alone all those new ones being
> proposed. Sigh, I am too. Carl, you understand the problem
At 05:12 PM 6/22/2001, Carl W. Brown wrote:
>Ken,
...
>Another approach that would be IBM 1401 friendly is to convert the Unicode
>code point into decimal number and then convert each decimal digit into a
>base 5 and a base 2 number. We can call it UTF-5.2.
>
>The only thing that I can see is tha
Hey guys, Ken is just kidding. He's evidently tired of the current
plethora of ways to represent Unicode let alone all those new ones being
proposed. Sigh, I am too. Carl, you understand the problem of adding yet
another UTF: you too will probably have to support it.
Murray
Carl Brown as
er
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 3:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: UTF-17
>
>
> Yves asked:
>
> > Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF-
> discussion?
>
> No, it is deadly serious. That's w
At 14:52 -0700 2001-06-22, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
I think UTF-11digit would be clearly sarcastic. UTF-17, well, I don't
know. I've been deleting the threads. Not my area.
Didj'all like the Osmanya document?
Y'all happy abo
Yves asked:
> Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
No, it is deadly serious. That's why Rick and I went to the trouble to
write up and submit an Internet Draft on the topic.
--Ken
Warning: Not all irony (1) is explicitly tagged in this message.
(1) Irony n
Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
YA
>
> In the way of solutions seeking a problem, I would like to
> propose a new UTF: UTF-17.
>
Do you have any inkling of what people intend to do with UTF-17?
My concern is that I am developing a cross platform Unicode support routine
and supporting UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 implementing of the sam
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>
> > > UTF-17 will interoperate easily with UTF-64.
What is UTF-64?
[Markus]
> > At least it sorts binary in code point order.
>
> Yes, good point. Rick and I have added that to the Internet Draft
> for UTF-17.
Does it mean that there will be some UTF-17S, which wi
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> In the way of solutions seeking a problem, I would like to
> propose a new UTF: UTF-17.
As [Cicero] would have said:
Times are bad.
Developers no longer follow specs,
and everyone is proposing a new UTF.
> UTF-17 will interoperate easily with UT
Markus,
Thank you for your comment.
> Nice, but you have the same kind of shortest-form problem as in UTF-8:
> <38 30 30 30 30 30 30 30> could be mis-interpreted by a lenient decoder as U+.
Well, actually, that is not technically a "shortest-form problem". All
UTF-17 forms are exactly 8 byt
Nice, but you have the same kind of shortest-form problem as in UTF-8:
<38 30 30 30 30 30 30 30> could be mis-interpreted by a lenient decoder as U+.
Ts, ts...
At least it sorts binary in code point order.
markus
61 matches
Mail list logo
