On 02/25/2001 08:33:32 PM "Joel Rees" wrote:
>And the PUA is already being fairly actively used, which means there is
>already a fair amount of extant plain text that is only legible within a
>specific context, and the UNICODE standard has no way of approaching it.
Yes, Unicode does: if there i
; From: ext Ayers, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 11:14 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Tengwar and Cirth (was: RE: Fictional scripts
> revisited, might
> as
>
>
>
> > From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> &g
At 10:35 -0600 2001-02-26, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> > From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>> Oh, we've got a *proposal* for Klingon. It does not, however, appear
>> that it meets the criteria for use as well as Tengwar and Cirth.
>
> Okay, I've finally gotta ask: what are Teng
> From: Michael Everson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Oh, we've got a *proposal* for Klingon. It does not, however, appear
> that it meets the criteria for use as well as Tengwar and Cirth.
Okay, I've finally gotta ask: what are Tengwar and Cirth? Klingon
I've heard of (and wish I hadn
On 02/25/2001 08:33:32 PM "Joel Rees" wrote:
>And the PUA is already being fairly actively used, which means there is
>already a fair amount of extant plain text that is only legible within a
>specific context, and the UNICODE standard has no way of approaching it.
Yes, Unicode does: if there i
At 18:33 -0800 2001-02-25, Joel Rees wrote:
>And the PUA is already being fairly actively used, which means there is
>already a fair amount of extant plain text that is only legible within a
>specific context, and the UNICODE standard has no way of approaching it.
And is guaranteed not to, unles
> > This, however, is absurd - one of those 1,000,000 words is
> > "antidisestablishmentarianism", and there's a whole bunch half that long
or
> > longer. Show me the glyphs for them! This NEC thingy may make cute
artsy
> > stuff, but it would be useless for communication. Besides, does anyone
On 2001.02.25, Christopher John Fynn responded
> Joel Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Maybe I'm a crackpot, but the need is there and people will use and
abuse
> > UNICODE in ways that you probably don't want to imagine. What I'm trying
to
> > push is building the mechanism n
Joel Rees [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
...
> Maybe I'm a crackpot, but the need is there and people will use and abuse
> UNICODE in ways that you probably don't want to imagine. What I'm trying to
> push is building the mechanism now for dodging most of the abuse.
...
Well the P
On 02/23/2001 02:18:46 PM Curtis Clark wrote:
>Let me be somewhat more explicit, now that I've thought about it for a
>while. IIRC there is an entire private use plane.
There are two of them, in fact.
> *Anyone* could develop a
>scheme whereby multiple private use plane codepoints could repre
At 08:45 -0800 2001-02-23, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
>From: "Dan Kolis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> Well, if you have no cultural bias and you encode Klingon, you pretty well
>> have to include anything.
>
>Last I saw, no one was going to encode Klingon.
Oh, we've got a *proposal* for Kling
At 10:51 PM 2/22/01, Joel Rees wrote:
> > So Plane 9, say, can be nothing but surrogates-of-surrogates, to some 64-
> > or 128-bit code space.
> >
>
>You do mean for UTF-16, don't you?
Let me be somewhat more explicit, now that I've thought about it for a
while. IIRC there is an entire private u
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 08:11:51AM -0800, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> Besides, does anyone
> really believe that alphabetic writers would decide that they'd rather learn
> thousands of glyphs? We're getting deeply fictional here...
All it would take is some small dictator-run communist country whose
d
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Ayers, Mike wrote:
> This, however, is absurd - one of those 1,000,000 words is
> "antidisestablishmentarianism", and there's a whole bunch half that long or
> longer. Show me the glyphs for them! This NEC thingy may make cute artsy
> stuff, but it would be useless fo
At 8:27 AM -0800 2/23/01, Dan Kolis wrote:
>Well, if you have no cultural bias and you encode Klingon, you pretty well
>have to include anything.
>
Klingon is not likely to be encoded any time soon. The basic problem
here is that the Klingon Language Institute has shown little interest
in prom
From: "Dan Kolis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, if you have no cultural bias and you encode Klingon, you pretty well
> have to include anything.
Last I saw, no one was going to encode Klingon.
So would the converse of that statement be true?
> Interesting discussion, however.
"Interesting" is o
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:58:06PM -0800, Thomas Chan wrote:
>> > First, there are the 4000 new[4] "CJK Ideographs" that he created solely
>> > for a work called _Tianshu_ (A Book from the Sky)[5] (1987-1991), which Xu
>> > spent three years carving movable wooden type for. There is no doubt t
> From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > The second example I would like to raise are the "Square
> Words" or "New
> > English Calligraphy"[6] (I don't know which name is more
> appropriate,
> > but I will refer to it hereafter as "NEC"), which is a
> Sinoform script.
> > NEC is a sy
At 6:28 AM -0800 2/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>The unlikelihood of you or anybody coming up with sufficient
>evidence to make that case is such that I'd be willing to put less
>constraint on you: present clear evidence that more than 880,790 characters
>will *ever* be in wide use and will me
On 02/22/2001 09:04:14 PM "Joel Rees" wrote:
>Actually, what I _think_ I am after is a standard way to let the standard
>committee(s) escape having to deal with ideosyncratic and personal
>characters until they actually come into general use.
Can anybody spell "PUA"? There are 137, 068 (64K * 2
From: "Joel Rees" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The common character set should provide the basis for expression,
Sounds good so far.
> not simply catalogue a huge number of semi-meaningless token
> partials that have been used by a lot of people.
But what precisely is being expressed? That is where t
On 2001.02.23 19:42 Arnt Gulbrandsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
> Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I'm telling you that 17 planes is not enough, and it _will_ become a
painful
> > constraint in your lifetime.
>
> How? It looks likely to me that unicode now encodes more than half of the
> charact
Joel Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm telling you that 17 planes is not enough, and it _will_ become a painful
> constraint in your lifetime.
How? It looks likely to me that unicode now encodes more than half of the
characters known by living people. Do you think people are going to
expand their r
On 2001.02.23 15:06, Curtis Clark wrote:
> At 07:04 PM 2/22/01, Joel Rees wrote:
> >I'm telling you that 17 planes is not enough, and it _will_ become a
painful
> >constraint in your lifetime.
>
> So Plane 9, say, can be nothing but surrogates-of-surrogates, to some 64-
> or 128-bit code space.
>
At 07:04 PM 2/22/01, Joel Rees wrote:
>I'm telling you that 17 planes is not enough, and it _will_ become a painful
>constraint in your lifetime.
So Plane 9, say, can be nothing but surrogates-of-surrogates, to some 64-
or 128-bit code space.
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupom
Joel Rees responded:
> > > If UNICODE can never attempt to address the issue of non-closure,
> >
> > You've got it completely backwards. The Unicode Standard is the one
> > with the open repertoire, which is why it keeps expanding year to year.
>
> I know you can't foresee breaking past 17 plane
Kenneth Whistler explained:
> Joel Rees responded:
>
> > >
> > > Idiosyncratic and personal characters are not encoded in Unicode.
> >
> > I find this a fault in UNICODE. When we go through the set algebrae in
the
> > introductory algebra courses for computer science, it is usually pointed
out
> >
Joel Rees responded:
> >
> > Idiosyncratic and personal characters are not encoded in Unicode.
>
> I find this a fault in UNICODE. When we go through the set algebrae in the
> introductory algebra courses for computer science, it is usually pointed out
> that a set of characters can only be arti
Hello, David,
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:58:06PM -0800, Thomas Chan wrote:
> > First, there are the 4000 new[4] "CJK Ideographs" that he created solely
> > for a work called _Tianshu_ (A Book from the Sky)[5] (1987-1991), which
Xu
> > spent three years carving movable wooden type for. There i
Thomas Chan noted:
>
> > > At the inception of various other fictional scripts, no one could foresee
> > > the growth of scholarly and/or amateur interest in them;
> >
> > True. That's why we wait until there is, before we consider encoding
> > a script.
>
> Yes, I agree. It is harder to fi
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:58:06PM -0800, Thomas Chan wrote:
> > First, there are the 4000 new[4] "CJK Ideographs" that he created solely
> > for a work called _Tianshu_ (A Book from the Sky)[5] (1987-1991), which Xu
> > spent three years carving movabl
On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 10:58:06PM -0800, Thomas Chan wrote:
> First, there are the 4000 new[4] "CJK Ideographs" that he created solely
> for a work called _Tianshu_ (A Book from the Sky)[5] (1987-1991), which Xu
> spent three years carving movable wooden type for. There is no doubt that
> these
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:58 PM
Subject: fictional scripts revisited
> Hi all,
>
> Between January 30-31, there was a thread here ent
Hi all,
Between January 30-31, there was a thread here entitled "ConScript
registry?", in which I mentioned[1] the possibility of non-Western
fictional scripts gobbling up codepoints, where I gave two example .jpg
files of the kinds of Chinese fictional scripts that exist.
Whether those fictiona
34 matches
Mail list logo
