On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:48 AM, Sean Leonard wrote:
Greetings--hi all, I'm a new poster. I read on the unicode.org website that a
good way to gauge interest and get a proposal through the process is to
gather feedback and comments here before investing the time in a formal
proposal, so, here
On 08/17/2011 05:14 PM, Sean Leonard wrote:
Just putting a*bump* on this post. Any feedback, or, shall I go
directly to a formal proposal? [Original proposal is in the last
e-mail so I am not resending the whole thing.]
Is that all the proposal? You realize you'll have to give sample glyphs,
What are the present criteria for the encoding of characters that have been
fairly recently invented please? There seems to be a lack of clarity.
For example, the criteria in relation to Wingdings and Webdings in the
following document are not the same as that often stated on the Unicode
Sean Leonard lists plus unicode at seantek dot com wrote:
Just putting a *bump* on this post.
Speaking as an individual with personal opinions, and without a vote in
UTC or WG2 (but having followed Unicode for 18 years), I don't see the
need for these additional symbols.
The C0 pictures in the
William_J_G Overington wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com
wrote:
What are the present criteria for the encoding of characters that have been
fairly recently invented please? There seems to be a lack of clarity.
Fairly recently invented seems not to tell the full story with regard
to
In general, I agree with Doug Ewell's assessment. I don't see a convincing
case here for the need to encode more control picture characters for C1
controls. There seems to be a confusion here between the need for
glyphs and the need for characters. Also, this would seem to me to
be a receding
On 13 August 2011 18:48, Sean Leonard lists+unic...@seantek.com wrote:
The Unicode code points U+ through U+00FF share the equivalent values
from the ASCII Standard, ISO 646, ISO 6429, and ISO 8859-1. In many contexts,
it is desirable to display all of these code points/characters
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:32:51 +0100
Andrew West andrewcw...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris Fynn asked about certain non-standard stacks he was trying to
implement in the Tibetan Machine Uni font in an email to the Tibex
list on 2006-12-09, but these didn't involve multiple consonant-vowel
sequences
8 matches
Mail list logo
