Message du 26/07/10 18:45
De : Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com
A : verd...@wanadoo.fr
Copie à : Unicode Mailing List unicode@unicode.org
Objet : Re: Using Combining Double Breve and expressing characters perhaps as
if struck out.
There are 857 combining marks with combining
On 28 July 2010 22:09, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
You've not understood what I wanted to say.
Maybe if you said less people would understand more .
I don't know how much free time you must have on your hands to write
hundreds of lines in reply to almost every message on this list
Markus Scherer
There are 857 combining marks with combining class of 0:
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[[:M:]%26[:ccc%3D0:]]abb=ong=
So what ? I perfectly know that there are a lot of diacritics with cc of 0.
It's DEFINITELY NOT me that contested that on this list
I agree; when the nuggets of useful information are so overwhelmed by the
volume of rubble, you just can't afford the time to sift them out.
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 14:46, Andrew West andrewcw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2010 22:09, Philippe Verdy
There are 857 combining marks with combining class of 0:
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[[:M:]%26[:ccc%3D0:]]abb=ong=
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev
I have been looking at the following thread, which is entitled Making Fonts
with Diacritical Marks for Phonetics.
http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=3t=3169
I am writing here to ask two questions please in relation to the Unicode
aspects of the problem.
I have looked at
Message du 24/07/10 09:02
De : William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
A : unicode@unicode.org
Copie à : wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
Objet : Using Combining Double Breve and expressing characters perhaps as if
struck out.
I have been looking at the following thread, which
Philippe Verdy wrote:
But even with this case, you wont be able to encode with the ZWJ trick
in plain text, such groupings that are expressed this way in TeX:
\breve{ \breve{oo} x \breve{ o\acute{o} } }
Because double diacritics encoded in Unicode can't be safely stacked
together (for
Guys, does nobody read the bloody Standard anymore!?
You CAN currently add a diacritic on top of a double diacritic. The other
base character is called the Combining Grapheme Joiner (U+304F).
From V. 5.0, ch 7.9:
Occasionally one runs across orthographic conventions that use a dot, an acute
Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr:
Double diacritics have a combining property equal to zero, so they
No, they don't. The above ones have combining class 234 and the below
ones have combining class 233 (other characters with the word DOUBLE
in them are 'double' in
De : vanis...@boil.afraid.org
Guys, does nobody read the bloody Standard anymore!?
You CAN currently add a diacritic on top of a double diacritic. The other
base character is called the Combining Grapheme Joiner (U+304F).
Sorry, I had forgotten this one. Note that I was not sure about the
Clark S. Cox III clarkc...@me.com
How can *any* combining character have a combining class of zero? Isn't that
a contradiction in terms?
The U+035D in your example, for instance, has a combining class of 234.
No contradiction. Not all combining characters have a non-zero
combining class. The
Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr:
Double diacritics have a combining property equal to zero, so they
No, they don't. The above ones have combining class 234 and the below
ones have combining class 233 (other
13 matches
Mail list logo
