Roozbeh Pournander wrote:
If you open a file that contains two adjacent runs at the
same level, will you make them one run when you write the file?
That was the idea. But only in the case when it is *really* an embedding
having the same directionality as the text where it is inserted. Like
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
Exactly what I was talking about :)
Of course it is your idea. I just thought about it in the last week-end :)
I'm not sure about the times two
embeddings occur exactly adjacent to each other. I have a sense that
merging the two may have bad effects.
I am not sure
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
People will fail to use it. Software should show the
ligature. Any way, I
don't like using a Lam-Alef character in the text. I want to
do sub-word
searching and things like that, and it will ruin those.
Hmmm... I would say that my "WYSIWYG Unicode", or any other
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Hmmm... I would say that my "WYSIWYG Unicode", or any other similar display
format, is not fit for doing searching, sorting, spell checking, etc.
For all these kinds of things I would convert text back to "proper Unicode"
and go with standard
It occurred to me that I can think of a complaint that I don't think was
mentioned: Unicode's dualism with regard to precomposed and decomposed
forms.
In terms of the ideals that drive Unicode's design principles, decomposed
representations should be prefered: they are adequate for
If it were me, I would keep two copies who update each other
when that's needed.
I am not sure what you mean, but it sounds very similar to what you wanted
to avoid.
Or perhaps we should only keep the active paragraph in your
WYSIWYG format?
Makes sense. Also, all lines (or paragraphs)
Your message
To: Unicode List
Cc: Unicode List; 'Michael Everson'
Subject: RE: Unicode editing (RE: Unicode complaints)
Sent:Tue, 20 Mar 2001 06:28:44 -0800
did not reach the following recipient(s):
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:08:01 -0800
The e-mail
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I am not sure what you mean, but it sounds very similar to what you wanted
to avoid.
That was a preface, for the next idea that you've somehow agreed to...
Condition (a) clearly doesn't apply to applications whose purpose *is* to
change the
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I am not sure that I catch what you mean here.
My simplified view was that each visual segment of text (i.e. one or more
adjacent characters at the same level) should have the opposite
directionality than the two segments around it.
If you
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
Now I like this. This is getting near to what I had in mind.
Characters,
together with their embedding levels (and possibly more).
You are right!
I have been thinking about this the whole week-end, and I too came to the
conclusion that the resolved embedding levels
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
...Take
this example: she wants to type "MEEM-SEEN-TEH-QAF-LAM". She
presses Meem,
she sees an isolated Meem, she presses Seen, the Meem becomes initial
Meem, and a final Seen gets added. She presses Teh, Seen
becomes medial,
final Tah getting added, What if
I wrote:
Peter constable wrote:
1. the insertion point is not before a word-forming Arabic (or other
connective script) character, and
2. some local (i.e. adjacent to the insertion point) change
to the text (insertion or deletion) has occurred since the insertion
was moved to its
On 03/19/2001 08:00:18 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I wrote:
[snip]
I think you need another condition:
3. a word-forming Arabic (or other connective script)
character has just been typed.
Why don't I connect my brain before starting typing!?
Condition 1 is more than enough to prevent any
Sorry for turning this thread into a monologue, but I must correct myself
once more:
If you select "ghi" and use the "Bidi Override" command, you
have a LTR text with one RTL embedding. Part of the RTL text
has an unnatural directionality (LRT characters forced to
RTL), so the resulting
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I have been thinking about this the whole week-end, and I too came to
the conclusion that the resolved embedding levels is what really needs
to be maintained during editing. Once you have these, you can safely
throw away all the bidi controls and
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
And this could happen with lam-alef, not only for users who don't have the
ligature on their keyboard, but also for users who have it but fail to use
it.
People will fail to use it. Software should show the ligature. Any way, I
don't like using a
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I never considered this. For a casual user it is so cute to see the letters
changing shape, and it is also very instructive for one learning the script.
But I see how this must be annoying for people typing in Arabic all the
time.
The great
On 03/16/2001 01:18:36 PM Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
...Take
this example: she wants to type "MEEM-SEEN-TEH-QAF-LAM". She presses Meem,
she sees an isolated Meem, she presses Seen, the Meem becomes initial
Meem, and a final Seen gets added. She presses Teh, Seen becomes medial,
final Tah getting
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
But I see no easy way to conjugate the complexity of bidi embedding and
overriding with the simplicity of a WYSIWYG representation. Not in plain
text, however.
I do not see an easy way either. Good bidi editing, needs more thought and
experience.
In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, I've found that
the majority of complaints relate to CJK character sets. Would listers
agree that this is the largest area of unrest? Or is it just
that people
involved with CJK are vocal?
I've read periodic questions or comments from
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Mark Davis wrote:
There are a huge number of problems in the analysis of text that occur with
visual ordering; these are avoided with logical ordering, which is why we
ended up using that for Unicode.
I know and agree. As I previously told, I am with Unicode in this. I
- Original Message -
From: "Roozbeh Pournader" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Behdad Esfahbod"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 06:41
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
Mark Davis wrote:
to run the bidi algorithm to get visual order, insert the
character, then run it backwards to get the logical order
again, which tells you where to put the character.
I think that Roozbeh perfectly hit the problem of bidirectional editing with
his comments, and Mark's
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
- The automatic shaping of Arabic, Syriac and Mongolian not consistent with
the manual shaping of Hebrew and Greek.
There is also something I always wanted to say about this. Automatic
shaping of Arabic has also some problems with the current
In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, I've found that
the majority of complaints relate to CJK character sets. Would listers
agree that this is the largest area of unrest? Or is it just that people
involved with CJK are vocal?
I've read periodic questions or comments from
In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, I've found that
the majority of complaints relate to CJK character sets. Would listers
agree that this is the largest area of unrest? Or is it just that people
involved with CJK are vocal?
Maybe it's just that since Han ideographs now
On 15/03/2001 17:19:14 Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Maybe it's just that since Han ideographs now constitute slightly more
than 75% of the standard by count (and probably 90% of the standard
by weight), they have more to complain about.
How do you compute their weight? By pixel? By semantics?
At 09:58 -0800 2001-03-15, Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
In the spirit of appeasement, we could at least -weigh- them by radical.
How much does a radical weigh?
--
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein ochtarach; Baile tha Cliath 2; ire/Ireland
Mob
On Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 09:40 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
I don't know enough about CJK, but I believe CJK experts have mush more
experience in computerizing their scripts than bidi experts do. So their
nagging should have much more meaning than ours.
The nagging in CJK, however,
-Original Message-
From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How much does a radical weigh?
That depends on the radical of course!
Geez, and I thought you people were character specialists.
From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How much does a radical weigh?
I check in at about 200lb.
/|/|ike
On Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 10:33 AM, Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
How much does a radical weigh?
That depends on the radical of course!
Actually, I think the correct answer is that a radical weighs as much
Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
How much does a radical weigh?
That depends on the radical of course!
Geez, and I thought you people were character specialists.
Obviously.
Abbie was a lightweight, Mao a heavyweight.
The hydroxyl radical weighs 17 kg per mole.
--
There is / one art
Apparently one of those 2-bite characters...
I am more of a 3-biter myself.
Trying to avoid the supplementary planes these days.
"Ayers, Mike" wrote:
How much does a radical weigh?
I check in at about 200lb.
--
According to Murphy, nothing goes according to Hoyle.
ED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:41 PM
To: Unicode List
Cc: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
I've read periodic questions or comments from people dealing with bidi
languages, but there doesn't seem to be the same level of
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
There is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with Unicode bidi among Hebrew
users in Israel. Fortunately for Unicode, the general public calls the Unicode
bidi algorithm "Microsoft Hebrew" and blame them.
The problem you mention, is because the
11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
"Suzanne M. Topping" wrote:
In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, ...
Let me add one complaint to your list:
Thai is not stored/used in logical order in Unicode.
I know that many here have fought hard to get every scri
On 03/15/2001 03:14:10 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:
And your suggestion for characters that sort *differently* in different
locales? You would want to add them multiple times?
What's the connection here with Markus' comment about Thai unfortunately
not being encoded in logical order?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem you mention, is because the Unicode bidi is used for data
entry,
Could you please explain a bit more of what that means. I'm not sure what
this is referring to, and I'm curious.
My previous post should have explained things a bit.
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
And your suggestion for characters that sort *differently* in different
locales? You would want to add them multiple times?
Obviously not. Locale-sensitive collation is an independent issue, and, of course, we
provide it - now based on the UCA.
For collation
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
There is no one single, intuitive algorithm that could
be used, which everyone would like.
I highly agree. This input method, or what you may call it, should be
locale-dependent. European numerals, which are just normal numerals in a
Hebrew
people.
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc.
http://www.trigeminal.com/
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
On 03/15/2001 03:14:10 PM "Michael \(
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
If you use Access 2000 to enter Hebrew data on a non-Hebrew machine, you
get
the ability to input data without the Bidi algorithm being applied till
y
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you think that split cursors that visually indicate where you are in the
text (e.g. you're entering between the last number and the following space
vs. you're entering between the first number and the preceding space --
these two perhaps
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
There are enough people used to the current system that you will have a
fairly painful experience trying to update it, too. This is not just a
cross-locale issue, it is an intra-locale issue as well.
I know. Perhaps it's somehow like East
Suzanne M Topping wrote,
In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, ...
Markus Scherer wrote,
Let me add one complaint to your list:
Thai is not stored/used in logical order in Unicode.
and Michael Kaplan wrote,
And your suggestion for characters that sort
who asks them to
change. :-)
michka
- Original Message -
From: "Jonathan Coxhead" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
Suzanne M Topping wrote,
In hunting around for neg
In a message dated 2001-03-15 11:57:11 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A broad summary of the CJK issues that I gathered:
...
--Limited number of code points
If anyone is complaining that the number of code points in Unicode is too
limited (whether for CJK reasons or
PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 13:38
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
If you use Access 2000 to enter Hebrew data on a non-Hebrew
Markus complained:
Thai is not stored/used in logical order in Unicode.
Here's my contribution to the FAQ about Thai:
Q. Why isn't Thai stored/used in logical order in Unicode?
A. Once upon a time, the Unicode fore-parents inherited the Thai
industrial standard, which is an 8-bit standard
50 matches
Mail list logo
