Unicode List
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
so, what is there to be turned on and off in win2k if surrogate pairs are
already handled as single units?
if fonts just don't contain mappings and glyphs for pairs, then the layout
engine will ignore them anyway u
sorry for responding to an old thread - comment below.
markus
Chris Pratley wrote on 2000-oct-03:
Surrogate support was not turned on by default in Win2000 because the
Windows team was waiting for the standard to be finalized. It was also added
late, so to reduce the potential impact they had
arkus Scherer" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
sorry for responding to an old thread - comment below.
markus
Chris Pratley wrote on 2000-oct-03:
Title: RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Windows 2000 does support surrogates as defined in Unicode 2.0 e.g. it recognizes them when
converting to/from UTF-8 OpenType recognizes new cmap types for surrogates.
The remaining steps e.g. fonts that display Ext B and sorting
so, what is there to be turned on and off in win2k if surrogate pairs are already
handled as single units?
if fonts just don't contain mappings and glyphs for pairs, then the layout engine will
ignore them anyway until fonts provide that data.
markus
John McConnell wrote:
Windows 2000
Cool, I didn't realize Boston and Athens were a pair, much less the first.
Which is the lead surrogate and which is the tail?
;-)
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" wrote:
Markus,
I assume that Chris was referring to the fact that there were not yet
surrogate pairs (language tags notwithstanding)
Title: RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
It's primarily for the display. There's a small performance hit for the surrogate processing that we weren't willing to impose on everyone given that there were no glyphs yet.
-Original Message-
From: Markus Scherer [mailto
Platform specific encoding ID: 10 --- really? Have values 7,
8, and 9 also been defined?
Bob
---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AT Internet on 04-10-2000 00:34
Format 12 (segmented coverage) is required for surrogate
t" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 13:20
Subject: RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Michka,
I would not expect Windows 2000 to support Unicode 3.0 especially since
the
final build of W2K was sent manufacturing in November of 1999 too late for
Unicode
From: "Mark Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If there are specific areas where the BIDI algorithm has flaws, that
should
be communicated to the UTC bidi subcommittee, ideally with a proposal to
fix
the problem.
My understanding is that this was done? Before my time at UTC meetings, mind
you, so this
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 2:06 PM
To: Carl W. Brown; Unicode List
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
I agree 100%, and I could make the same argument for surrogate support in
SQL Server
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 13:53
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
I agree 100%, and I could make the same argument for surrogate support in
SQL Server 2000 (i.e. there are no characters, so support is not relevant
at
ship time) but since I cannot ever
nader" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Michael (michka) Kap
Ar 06:25 -0800 2000-10-03, scríobh Mark Davis:
Even compliant products with good support for Unicode will often not support
*all* of the characters in the latest version of Unicode, especially as
extremely infrequent characters such as Ogham are added.
Mark is right. To date, none of the major
2125
-Original Message-
From: Carl W. Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 3, 2000 7:44 AM
To: Unicode List
Subject: RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Michka,
I would expect surrogate support in SQL Server 2000. Windows 2000 has
surrogate support however
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Hay-Roe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: October 3, 2000 1:52 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: RE: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Chris Pratley wrote:
Surrogate support was not turned on by default in Win2000 because the
Windows team was waiting
Chris Pratley wrote (regarding surrogate support):
There are a couple of reg keys that can do part of the enabling. I think the
Windows team will release a support pack of some kind once they've got the
support final (turning on the reg keys simply enables part of the support -
there are
very soon.
Thanks,
-apurva
-Original Message-
From: James Kass [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 3:28 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Chris Pratley wrote (regarding surrogate support):
There are a couple of reg
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Chris Pratley wrote (regarding surrogate support):
There are a couple of reg keys that can do part of the enabling. I think the
Windows team will release a support pack of some kind once they've got the
support final (turning
Hello,
I'm writing to inquire about the "lag time" between when Unicode 3.0 hit the street
and when implementations in Windows NT, software tools, fonts, etc. came out? Does
stuff usually come out within 3 months, 6 months, ?
Is there a central URL that keeps track of implementations, so
VB at
http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
- Original Message -
From: "Elaine Keown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Hello,
I'm writing to inquire about the "lag
)
- Original Message -
From: "Elaine Keown" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Unicode List" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 9:57 AM
Subject: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Hello,
I'm writing to inquire about the "lag time" between when Unico
the changes were
minor.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:15 AM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in OS, etc?
Windows NT's latest version, Windows 2000, does not support Unicode
n
difficult to implement late in the development cycle unless the changes
were
minor.
Carl
-Original Message-
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:15 AM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: lag time in Unicode implementations in O
24 matches
Mail list logo
