John Hudson wrote (way back on 2001-04-15):
>
> Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft, and
> no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being added
> to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
> OpenType mark
> At 2001-04-18 08:49:40 -0600 John H. Jenkins wrote:
> The fundamental problem is that *everywhere* in the TrueType spec it is
> assumed that glyph indices are two bytes, and there are innumerable
> tables that reference glyph indices. Basically TrueType would have to
> be rewritten from scratch
> From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > You ever notice how characters in different writing systems
> seem to be
> > made out of only a small number of parts? Like if you write
> an N backwards,
> > you get a Russian vowel,
>11 Digit Boy asked:
>> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
>
>BMP = 256 × 256 = 65536
>HI_SURROGS = 1024
>LO_SURROGS = 1024
>
>UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS × LO_SURROGS = 1114112
There are other ways to calculate:
17 * 65536 = 1,114,112
0x10 + 1 = 1,114,112 (decimal)
But we
11 Digit Boy asked:
> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
BMP = 256 $B!_(J 256 = 65536
HI_SURROGS = 1024
LO_SURROGS = 1024
UNICODE = BMP + HI_SURROGS $B!_(J LO_SURROGS = 1114112
Notice, however that they are characters, not glyphs. Also notice that they
are slightly fewer th
11 Digit Boy wrote:
> And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick
> for Kanji. I mean, how many times are you going to keep
> making that water radical?
This has been debated a lot of times. There were two separate stories about
this.
The first one was whether ideograph component
From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And look me in the eye and tell me it is not a great trick for Kanji. I
mean, how many times are you going to keep making that water radical?
Its not all that great of a trick as far as I am concerned, but I am glad
you like it.
The known world is going
IL PROTECTED]>;[EMAIL PROTECTED];
Cc:
$BF|;~(B: 01/05/21 21:00
$B7oL>(B: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
>From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
>
>Unicode only defines c
From: "11 digit boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
Unicode only defines characters, not glyphs.
> That is 1114112, I think.
Something like that. It looks nicer in hex.
> You ever notice how characters in different writing systems seem to be
made out
On 04/18/2001 09:49:40 AM John Jenkins wrote:
>At the same time, none of the people involved in defining TrueType --
>Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft -- believe that it is really a good idea to
>have a single font covering all of Unicode. Microsoft provides one
>because there has been a strong push
$B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
>> that
>> supports 0x100 glyphs:
$B#1#6#7#7#7#2#1#6!"$M!)(B
I can't do conversions.
$B$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i$i!#(B
Why does Unicode only have space for 1114112 glyphs?
That is 1114112, I think.
You ever notice how characters in different writing
On Wednesday, April 18, 2001, at 08:10 AM, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> James Kass wrote:
>>
>> No. The new cmap supports more than double-byte in order to access
>> non-BMP encodings. The Glyph IDs (the number/order of the glyphs
>> in a font) remain locked at 65536 max. Unfortunately this isn't
At 3:19 PM -0700 4/20/01, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>At 03:50 PM 4/20/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I say 0 and 1 are adequate. I find this discussion rather pointless
>>since we all already know that ASCII is adequate if the given premise
>>is that ASCII is adequate. I don't see what's there
>
> Also, you're part of the problem. "8859-1 is enough for everyday use."
Yes, and rather proud of it, in the same way as opposition is
the way to healthy democracy. Also, we are not the guilty ones,
we use what's given to us, I would say the guilty ones are the
"adequate" designers of the com
At 03:50 PM 4/20/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I say 0 and 1 are adequate. I find this discussion rather pointless
>since we all already know that ASCII is adequate if the given premise
>is that ASCII is adequate. I don't see what's there to discuss.
We are just trying to see if tautologi
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:43:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
> for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first set that covers all the required
> characters. (But 8859-1 is enough for everyday use.)
>
> > all your files wou
> Perhaps I should have gone with C, but the point was your
> English-processing English-commented Perl programs are in ASCII. You
> sent out an ASCII email. If you were (?) English
Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:02:17PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Depends on who you're talking to and what you mean by adequate
> > computing. If you're talking to some Unix grognard about Perl
> > hacking,
>
> Oy! I resemble that remark.
>
> Of course I am rather biased but I still think
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> > Errr - my point is:
> >
> > "If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
> > adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
> >
> > What's yours?
>
> Depends on who you're talking
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 11:31:10AM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> Errr - my point is:
>
> "If you attempt to promote Unicode by saying that it now enables
> adequate computing in English, you will not be well received."
>
> What's yours?
Depends on who you're talking to and what
> From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> Which, to the extent which this is true (show me how you plan to
> handle The Art of Computer Programming or the Dragon book, for
> example), is equally true of upper case. Capitalizing sentences is
> redundant with punctuation, and any additi
>
> Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
> his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
> this day.
>
Well, I've seen *something* in the (British) Science Museum, but whether
it's complete, or works, I can't remember.
It might be truer to say n
Edward Cherlin wrote
>Two Babbage Difference Engines were built by other companies, with
>his blessing, but nobody has ever attempted an Analytical Engine to
>this day.
But they did
quote from the Science Museum
"Analytical Engine Mill by Henry Prevost Babbage, 1910.
Babbage bequeathed h
In the early 1990s I did a small piece of research on devising a method of
inputting text in the Esperanto language into a PC using an ordinary English
keyboard.
Some aspects of that research now appear to be relevant to the present
discussion of implementing unicode 3.1 on older computer systems
At 10:26 AM -0700 4/18/01, John Hudson wrote:
>At 05:03 PM 4/18/2001 +0200, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
>>If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't hacked goldsmiths' punches and wine presses
>>(with the vile purpose of counterfeiting costly manuscript books!) we
>>wouldn't be here talking about the digital by-pr
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 06:37:35PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> P.S. They are needed for capitalizing sentences, titles, and names, of
> course!
So? In your previous email, you said:
> The message carried by the most beautifully typeset works of the
> English language can be communicated effect
> From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> THEN WHY WASTE A WHOLE BIT ON UPPER CASE? THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT
> NECCESSARY AND I HAVE FREQUENTLY SEEN PEOPLE NOT USE THEM WHEN
> AVAILABLE.
>
Good point. We didn't need 'em to get "Huckleberry Finn", so how
necessary can they b
>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: benefits of unicode
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>
>
>> I wonder if we could add a page in this vein to the Unicode
MC> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
MC> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
MC> Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
MC> BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support
MC> on Linux, but I know that projects are
st
Cc: 'Carl W. Brown'; 'Kenneth Whistler'
Subject: RE: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: benefits of unicode)
Carl Brown wrote:
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
> Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
> bill. Seriously I wou
Carl Brown wrote:
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write
> Unicode for the IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the
> bill. Seriously I would never agree to such a ludicrous
> idea.
Thanks, Carl, but if "these folks" is me, I don't even know what an IBM 1401
is, let alone
> How on earth can 'ideographs' be synthesized from consonants and
> vowels? Moreover, when I wrote that 'CJK don't always go together', I
> wasn't talking about Chinese characters(ideographs) at all. I was talking
> about Korean Hangul only (I think it was pretty clear in the part of
> my messa
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
> being
> > > done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
> >
> > As a general statement, I might agree to the abov
From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work
being
> > done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
>
> As a general statement, I might agree to the above. However, I'm a bit
> confused as to what you're specifically talki
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 02:09:30PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> that the extra symbols can make the read a little easier, but they are not
> considered[1] necessary. We were discussing adequcy, not excellence, and to
> me the two are quite distinct.
THEN WHY WASTE A WHOLE BIT ON UPPER CASE? THEY
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
> > and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
>
> As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of thi
From: "Jungshik Shin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, CJK don't always go together in information processing
> and that's one of myths to be dispelled in I18N community.
As long as specific markets remain resistant to the idea of this work being
done, this is no mere myth -- it is a reality.
michk
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Compared to the memory requirements for video, sound, and for data
> caching on servers, the memory requirements for Unicode per se
> tend to be down in the noise -- with the exception of those big
> CJK fonts.
Well, CJK don't always go together in
At 12:49 PM +0200 4/18/01, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>James Kass wrote:
>> > >..., the old 386's
>> > >... may not be able
>> > >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
> > >
>BTW, I don't know in detail the current status of Unicode support on Linux,
>but I know that proje
Carl Brown said, in support of Michka cringing about segments:
> I agree.
>
> If these folks really want Unicode everywhere I will write Unicode for the
> IBM 1401 if they are willing to foot the bill. Seriously I would never
> agree to such a ludicrous idea.
Exactly. How about an Apple II or
At 9:44 AM +0100 4/18/01, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 11:34 -0700 2001-04-17, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>
>>What about Pali written in any of Sinhala, Thai, Burmese,
>>Devanagari, and extended Latin scripts? I know that there is a
>>problem for Sanskrit written in Tibetan and other Asian scripts.
>
>
> From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> At 2:04 PM -0500 4/17/01, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> > > From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > >
> > > One of the strongest benefits of Unicode is that it supports adequate
> >> *monolingual* computing for the first time in any langu
Peter Constable wrote:
> >> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
> >> code points).
> >This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
> Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch
> on. James is absolutely right.
Sorry, I have bee
Marco wrote:
> James Kass wrote:
> > > [...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
> > > implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
> >
> > It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
>
> Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
>
> I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
> gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
>
Levity helps, too.
>
>
> >If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
>
take lots of memory.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Michael (michka) Kaplan
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 6:16 AM
To: Marco Cimarosti; Unicode List; 'James Kass'
Cc: Peter Constable
Subject: Re: Latin w/ diacritics (was Re: b
At 10:48 AM 4/18/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
> >> code points).
> >
> >This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
>
>Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
>a
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
> partial support for Unicode.
I shudder at this characterization, truly. :-)
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
Peter Constable wrote:
> Why would you encode presentation form glyphs in the PUA if you don't
> expect them to be encoded directly in documents. "Smart font"
> rendering systems map character codes into glyph ids, and so these
> glyphs don't need to be encoded in the cmap.
I may be wrong, but
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
MC> > >
> > > I thought that the PUA was being considered here as a place
> > to put the extra
> > > *glyphs* needed internally by a rendering engine -- not as
> > a direct mean of
> > > encoding text.
> >
JK>
> > In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped
On 04/18/2001 10:30:56 AM "James Kass" wrote:
>> Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the
slightest.
>> But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of
Unicode,
>> as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to
glyph
>> ID 20, which
At 08:30 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>I couldn't bring myself to call a masterpiece like mayan.ttf a hack:
>http://www.themeworld.com/cgi-bin/preview.pl/fonts/mayan.zip
>
>(Mayan is on the Roadmap to Plane One, but it doesn't look as
>though there's been any detailed proposal yet.)
I bel
>> In TrueType/OpenType, glyphs don't have to be mapped (assigned to
>> code points).
>
>This is a myth that I hope to see eradicated as soon as possible.
Marco, you are generating a myth that I hope not to see catch on. James is
absolutely right.
>The only possible way to display Unicode is
>Funding makes the world revolve, free time makes it rotate.
I'm glad someone set me straight. I've been told all these years it was
gravity, but I had my doubts... :-)
>If the PUA is used in order to display Latin Unicode on older
>systems, like Win 9x, the source page in true Unicode would
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> Indeed there's no alternative, and so I don't knock them in the slightest.
> But there's also no question that their TrueType font is a hack of Unicode,
> as the attached GIF makes clear: e.g. U+0031 DIGIT ONE is mapped to glyph
> ID 20, which is clearly not a digit o
>Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
>doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
>Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
Win95 could perhaps be looked at as a revision of Win3.x that provides
partial support for Unicode.
>> Pre-composed L
Peter Constable wrote:
> In newer software, our custom-encoded font practices are having
> their true identity revealed. They're hacks.
[...]
>If the quarriers hadn't conformed to the standards established by the
>architects, the pyramids would never have been built.
If Johannes Gutemberg hadn't
>> I've done it numerous times, and I still do it on occasion. I still call
it
>> a "hack", though, since that's what it is, in many cases at least: The
cmap
>> in TrueType fonts for Windows uses Unicode. People think they're putting
>> their favourite character on an 8-bit codepoint, but in the
James Kass wrote:
> > [...] but would it really take *millions* of dollars for
> > implementing Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
>
> It could be done with, say, Ramon Czyborra's Unifont and QBasic.
Why not? Or, even better, with a Unifont-derived BDF font and GNU C++.
> Funding makes the world r
At 05:18 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>There should be an English version of that page at the same site.
>Michael Everson has a proposal for the script which can be accessed
>from the Roadmap page at:
>http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/bmp-roadmap-table.html
>(I think it's Michael Evers
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for implementing
> Unicode on DOS or Windows 3.1?
With Windows CE supporting Unicode, I think it would be cheaper to get *i
Roman Czyborra's Unifont, sorry for the typo.
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
> > invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
>
> Well, I am not saying that it would be easy, or that it would be worth
> doing, but would it really take *millions* of dollars for i
At 02:07 -0700 2001-04-18, James Kass wrote:
>Consider the following linked page:
>
>http://www.linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/research/hmong/hmongaustpahawh.html#pahawh
>
>If you want to view the page properly, you'll download their font.
>There is no alternative for web master or visitor.
>(I know
James Kass wrote:
> > >..., the old 386's
> > >... may not be able
> > >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
> >
> Indeed. And it wouldn't be fair to fault businesses reluctant to
> invest millions of dollars to target an impoverished market.
Well, I am not saying that i
Peter Constable wrote:
>
> >..., the old 386's
> >... may not be able
> >to support an OS capable of using new rendering technology.
>
> That is indeed a problem. It's not one that technologists are good at
> solving, if for no other reason than because they have little option but to
> develop
At 11:34 -0700 2001-04-17, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>What about Pali written in any of Sinhala, Thai, Burmese,
>Devanagari, and extended Latin scripts? I know that there is a
>problem for Sanskrit written in Tibetan and other Asian scripts.
What is the question?
--
Michael Everson ** Everson G
At 2:04 PM -0500 4/17/01, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> > From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
>> I would like to point out, again, that there is not now, and cannot
>> be, an 8-bit code page adequate to English, and the same is
>> necessarily true for every other language in modern use
From: "David Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, CP1252 seems
> to cover it pretty well, but it isn't covered by ASCII.
Well, one good thing about the MS code pages (for all the heat they get here
and elsewhere!) is the fact that they are very market oriented and designed
to handle whatever
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 02:04:57PM -0500, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> Aesthetic concerns are nice, but the English-reading community has quite
> firmly set them in the "optional" category. For at least one language,
> 7 bits was plenty.
Picking up something slightly more complex, but not high budget or
On 04/16/2001 09:02:16 PM unicode-bounce wrote:
>> How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches
up,
>> or you build your own (e.g. Graphite) and build apps that work on that.
I
>> suspect (or, at least, certainly hope) we'll see progress in this regard
in
>> IE 6.
>>
>
>> Whether the PUA or custom code pages are used, some kind of
>> software which converts to and from Unicode would be
>> helpful to assure that users of older hardware can continue
>> to communicate with the "modern" world.
[snip]
>since i'm not a programmer, I'm not able to throw together su
>I.S. 434:1999 is a standard for Ogham.
>http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/is434.pdf
Out of curiousity, in how many products has that standard been implemented?
- Peter
---
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initi
> From: Edward Cherlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I would like to point out, again, that there is not now, and cannot
> be, an 8-bit code page adequate to English, and the same is
> necessarily true for every other language in modern use. More than a
> century of typewriters and computers
This message apparently did not reach the list, so I'm sending it again.
At 8:30 AM -0500 4/13/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There are *always* other code pages. There are several for Inuktitut, for
>example. The problem is that they are generally proprietary to small groups
>of users or particul
At 08:30 -0500 2001-04-13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Others in this category -- no widely accepted standard other than Unicode,
>but lots of non-standard code pages in use -- probably include Ethiopic,
>Burmese, Lao, Syriac, Old Italic, Gothic, Deseret, Runic, Ogham, IPA
>(definitely), Thaana, Ti
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
> >
> > Andrew also mentioned custom (8-bit) code pages, which are widely
> > used...
>
> actually i don't think they're widely used.
Widely used in general rather than any specific custom code
page use.
> But I'd rather not get into Sudanese politics at the moment.
Quoting James Kass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Waiting isn't much of an option, the users need results now.
> > Even when the rendering technology catches up, the old 386's
> and such that are in use in places like the Sudan may not be able
> to support an OS capable of using new rendering technolo
Quoting John Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Although there has not been any official announcement from Microsoft,
> and
> no release date, my understanding is that 'generic' shaping is being
> added
> to Uniscribe. This includes support for diacritic composition using
> OpenType mark-to-base
Peter Constable wrote:
Andrew C.>
> >This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
> and
> >some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
> one
> >handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
> and
> >where a prec
At 08:44 PM 4/15/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of languages with this
>issue. There's at least one language in Peru that has to stack diacritics
>three high!
>
>How do you handle these? You wait till the rendering technology catches up,
>or
>This problem isn't unique to Dinka, you'll find it exists in other african
and
>some australian aboriginal languages. So teh question is ... how should
one
>handle kllangauges that use combinations of latin letters and diacritics
and
>where a precomposed form does not exist?
There are literally
Hi James,
Quoting James Kass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Many African adaptations of the Latin script require
> characters which aren't precomposed in Unicode.
>
yep, you can add a number of australian aboriginal languages to that list as
well
> One example of a common problem is with combin
Quoting "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: "Andrew Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Well, I guess this is one of those huge "maybe" type questions, since
> there
> is no universal definition of what "supports Unicode x.xx" means. Here
> are
> some sample posers:
>
LOL
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> [..]
> 4) Does it mean that there are no deviations between the Unicode bidi
> algorithm and the one MS implements?
BTW, has anyone listed the differences? It will be helpful to know what
kind of Bidi Microsoft has implemented if they're no
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
Andrew C.>
> > and if only they did allow latin script support in uniscribe but i
> > guess support for african langaguageds is extremely low on their list of
> > priorities.
>
Michka>
> I would not ever presume such a thing... what issues in latin scripts a
From: "Andrew Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> true, personally i'd rather seem Microsft complete their unicode support
> first before doing anything with other character sets ... quite a few
years
> off full support for unicode 3.0 and 3.1
Well, I guess this is one of those huge "maybe" type q
- Original Message -
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> It DOES, however, underscore the fact that Unicode support is so much
easier
> than supporting every random code page that the only reasonable way
vendors
> can keep up with every single market is to have a good st
From: "Tex Texin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Isn't this covered by the second benefit on the page?
> Reduced development costs, etc
I guess with real-world examples it seems that its a bit more explicit of a
benefit. At this point, anyone who does
Michael,
Isn't this covered by the second benefit on the page?
Reduced development costs, etc
tex
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
> It DOES, however, underscore the fact that Unicode support is so much easier
> than supporting every random code page that the only reasonable way vendors
> > The fact that a product supports Unicode and does not
> support another
> > code
> > page used in some region, does not mean that the vendor
> > supports that region, nor does it mean if they decide to support the
> > region that it would be only with Unicode...
>
> It DOES, however, undersc
At 8:30 AM -0500 4/13/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>There are *always* other code pages. There are several for Inuktitut, for
>example. The problem is that they are generally proprietary to small groups
>of users or particular products, and what lacks is a standard. Unicode
>provides a solution to
From: "Tex Texin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The fact that a product supports Unicode and does not support another
> code
> page used in some region, does not mean that the vendor
> supports that region, nor does it mean if they decide to support the
> region that it would be only with Unicode...
It
Tex Texin scripsit:
> I could see defining "code page support" as meaning that the code
> page can be used as the default system code page, to distinguish it
> from products that just convert from the code page to the system one
> when the data is imported/exported.
Right. Otherwise you might a
From: "Tex Texin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If I had some examples from IBM, Sun, HP, Unisys, etc. then
> the benefit would not read like Microsoft is all that matters.
Since there are locales that do not have specific code pages recognized by
other vendors, I think you already have the proof you ar
Michka,
The fact that a product supports Unicode and does not support another
code
page used in some region, does not mean that the vendor
supports that region, nor does it mean if they decide to support the
region that it would be only with Unicode...
tex
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
>
I could see defining "code page support" as meaning that the code
page can be used as the default system code page, to distinguish it
from products that just convert from the code page to the system one
when the data is imported/exported.
Original Message
Subject: Re
The document we are discussing is:
http://www.geocities.com/i18nguy/UnicodeBenefits.html
John,
Right, I quite understand the point about Microsoft support, I was
resisting the focus solely on Microsoft though.
Let me try it another way, that perhaps will satisfy everyone.
Are there similar con
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oh sure. The point is that ISCII does exist, but Microsoft does not
> support it: therefore, if you are going to do Indic languages,
> you must have Unicode (for Microsoft environments, anyway).
Actually, this is not really true... Windows 2000 and XP bo
Damn! Peter, now there will be a signature bot.
We need a separate list for discussing bot-workarounds
Thanks for the comments on languages w/o standard code pages. I will
add a bennie to the benefit list.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It might help if you create a boilerplate signature that's rea
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
