On 14/01/2019 04:00, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
[…]
[…] As Asmus has shown, one of the best ways to understand what
Unicode does with respect to text variants is that style works on
spans of characters (words,...), and is rich text, but thinks that
work on single characters are handled
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg wrote,
>
> > How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
>
> Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just display with a
> dotted circle but neglected to try it out first. It actually
On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard
Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
wrote:
Hans Åberg wrote,
How
On 1/14/2019 2:08 PM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
Asmus,
I
agree 100%. Asking where is the harm was an actual question
intended to surface problems. It wasn’t rhetoric for saying
there
On 1/14/2019 2:08 AM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
Perhaps the question should be put to
twitter, messaging apps, text-to-voice vendors, and others
whether it will be useful or not.
If the discussion continues I would like
to see more of a
On 1/14/2019 2:43 PM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Hans Åberg wrote,
> How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just
display with a dotted
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:09 AM Tex via Unicode wrote:
> The arguments against italics seem to be:
>
> ·Unicode is plain text. Italics is rich text.
>
> ·We haven't had it until now, so we don't need it.
>
> ·There are many rich text solutions, such as html.
>
> ·
On 1/14/2019 2:58 PM, David Starner via
Unicode wrote:
Source code is an example of plain text, and yet adding italics into
comments would require but a trivial change to editors. If the user
audience cared, it would have been done. In fact, I suspect there
exist
On 14/01/2019 08:26, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-01-13, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
[…]
These statements make me fear that the font you are using might unsupport
the NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE U+202F > <. If you see a question mark between
It displays as a space. As one
Hans Åberg wrote,
> How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would just display
with a dotted circle but neglected to try it out first. It actually
renders perfectly here. /That's/ good to know. (smile)
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> > On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hans Åberg wrote,
> >
> > > How about using U+0301 COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT: 푝푎푠푠푒́
> >
> > Thought about using a combining accent. Figured it would
On 1/14/19 4:45 AM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
Hello James, others,
From the examples below, it looks like a feature request for Twitter
(and/or Facebook). Blaming the problem on Unicode doesn't seem to be
appropriate.
I think what people here are doing is not blaming the problem on
On 1/13/19 10:00 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
On 2019/01/14 01:46, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
And what happens when you capitalise a word for emphasis or to begin a
sentence? Is
On 1/14/2019 5:41 PM, Mark E. Shoulson
via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/19 5:08 AM, Tex via Unicode
wrote:
This thread has gone on for a bit and
I question if there is any more light
On 1/14/19 5:08 AM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
This thread has gone on for a bit and I question if there is any more
light that can be shed.
BTW, I admit to liking Asmus definition for functions that span text
being a definition or criteria for rich text.
Me too. There are probably some
On 1/14/19 4:21 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:08 AM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Perhaps the question should be put to twitter, messaging apps,
text-to-voice vendors, and others whether it will be useful or not.
If the discussion continues I would like to see more of a
In some of this discussion, I'm not sure what is being proposed or
forbidden here... I don't know that anyone is advocating removing the
"don't use these for words!" warning sticker on the mathematical
italics. The closest-to-sensible suggestions I've heard are things like
a VS to italicize a
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 06:24:46 +
James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Unicode doesn't enforce any spelling or punctuation rules. Unicode
> doesn't tell human beings how to pronounce strings of text or how to
> interpret them.
These are not statements that are both honest and true. Unicode lays
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:02:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/14/2019 3:37 PM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 00:02:49 +0100
> Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
>
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 23:43, James Kass via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg wrote,
>
>
(sorry for multiple responses...)
On 1/13/19 10:00 PM, Martin J. Dürst via Unicode wrote:
On 2019/01/14 01:46, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
On 2019-01-12, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 10:57:26 + (GMT)
And what happens when you capitalise a word for
On 2019/01/15 07:58, David Starner via Unicode wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 2:09 AM Tex via Unicode wrote:
>> ·Plain text still has tremendous utility and rich text is not always
>> an option.
>
> Where? Twitter has the option of doing rich text, as does any closed
> system. In
On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode
wrote:
> *If* the VS is ignored by searches, as apparently it should be and some
> have reported that it is, then VS-type solutions would NOT be a problem
> when it comes to searches
Who is using VS-type solutions? I could not enter
On 2019/01/15 10:48, Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode wrote:
> On 1/14/19 4:21 PM, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
>> Short of that, I'm extremely leery of "leading" standardization; that
>> is, encoding things that "might" be used.
>>
> It is certainly true that Unicode should not be (and
On 15/01/2019 01:17, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 1/14/2019 2:08 PM, Tex via Unicode wrote:
Asmus,
I agree 100%. Asking where is the harm was an actual question intended to
surface problems. It wasn’t rhetoric for saying there is no harm.
The harm comes when this is imported into
On 2019-01-14, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Julian Bradfield wrote,
> > I have never seen a Unicode math alphabet character in email
> > outside this list.
>
> It's being done though. Check this message from 2013 which includes the
> following, copy/pasted from the web page into Notepad:
>
>
On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 07:47:45 + (GMT)
Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote:
> On 2019-01-13, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> > यदि आप किसी रोटरी फोन से कॉल कर रहे हैं, तो कृपया स्टार (*) दबाएं।
>
> > What happens with Devanagari text? Should the user community
> > refrain from
Not a twitter user, don't know how popular the practice is, but here's a
couple of links concerned with how to use bold or italics in Twitter
plain text messages.
https://www.simplehelp.net/2018/03/13/how-to-use-bold-and-italicized-text-on-twitter/
https://mothereff.in/twitalics
Both pages
Hello James, others,
From the examples below, it looks like a feature request for Twitter
(and/or Facebook). Blaming the problem on Unicode doesn't seem to be
appropriate.
Regards, Martin.
On 2019/01/14 18:06, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Not a twitter user, don't know how popular
Hello James, others,
On 2019/01/14 15:24, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> Martin J. Dürst wrote,
>
> > I'd say it should be conservative. As the meaning of that word
> > (similar to others such as progressive and regressive) may be
> > interpreted in various way, here's what I mean by
Hello Martin, others...
> Blaming the problem on Unicode doesn't seem to be appropriate.
I don't consider that there's any problem with plain text users
exchanging plain text. I give Unicode /credit/ for being the foundation
of that ability. Anyone imagining that I'm casting blame is
> On 13 Jan 2019, at 22:43, Khaled Hosny via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> LaTeX with the
> “unicode-math” package will translate ASCII + font switches to the
> respective Unicode math alphanumeric characters. Word will do the same.
> Even browsers rendering MathML will do the same (though most likely
This thread has gone on for a bit and I question if there is any more light
that can be shed.
BTW, I admit to liking Asmus definition for functions that span text being a
definition or criteria for rich text.
I also liked James examples of the twitter use case.
The arguments against
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 06:08, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
>
> 퐴푟푡 푛표푢푣푒푎푢 seems a bit 푝푎푠푠é nowadays, as well.
>
> (Had to use mark-up for that “span” of a single letter in order to indicate
> the proper letter form. But the plain-text display looks crazy with that
> HTML jive in it.)
How
33 matches
Mail list logo
