- Indentation codepoint, with no fixed defined graphical representation. For
indentation based programming languages.
That wouldn’t be compliant with existing languages and future languages might
use any existing character.
Because:
-- specific clients may want to show it different
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:11 AM, Ken Whistler kenwhist...@att.net wrote:
for the full context, and for the current 26x26 letter matrix which is
the basis for the flag glyph implementations of regional indicator
code pairs on smartphones.
SC, SO, ST are already taken, but might I suggest
I think this discussion is confusing the need for separate syntactic
functions
in formal language definitions with the need for *encoding* of characters.
The distinction between assignment and test for equality has been around for
decades in formal languages, and of course it is almost always
But then it would be incompatible from IDE to IDE, like Python is
incompatible using 2 spaces, 4 spaces and tabs.
It's the data that is important, not the software.
Specifically talking about Python, we should not solve what PEP 8[1] is
intended for in Unicode. Pythonistas and their IDEs are
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
andrea.giammar...@gmail.com wrote:
if a cultural/language TLD is typed with Unicode RIS, then show the flag
for these culture/language:
This does not work. The Unicode RIS are defined to be used in pairs, with
semantics according to
Frédéric Grosshans frederic dot grosshans at gmail dot com wrote:
The including of emoji was a considerable debate here, with people
strongly against and strongly for. The trick is that they were already
used as digital characters by Japanese Telcos and their millions of
customers. They were
Thanks for your replies,
As far as I see, my informal request for expanding current RIS design
hasn't a good response. I understand it. Flags are cause of disputes, and
it isn't an issue for Unicode encode them.
IMHO keept tied to 2-alpha codes is a poor choice for users. May be
industry
@ John D Burger:
And out of the sudden a war wages what counts as good editor. :D
@ Andre Schappo:
That's a good idea. We need it in the name of science and education. :D
William_J_G Overington:
Hi
You might like the following post.
Hello everyone,
I've had an interesting request [1] that makes sense to me, but I'd like
to understand Unicode position about it.
The TL;DR version of the request is the following:
There are communities, let's take Scottish people as example, that have
even a domain but not an emoji flag.
Shervin Afshar shervinafshar at gmail dot com wrote:
There is no longer any requirement that the robot faces and
burritos appear first in any sort of industry character set
extension, with which Unicode is then obliged to maintain
compatibility.
Only if you don't consider existing usage and
Le 9 févr. 2015 20:27, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org a écrit :
Sorry, I can't let the compatibility argument go unchallenged again.
I stand corrected (and I should have known better! )
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
I said there was no longer a requirement *that the items appear first in
an industry character set extension*, right?
The issue is with your very rigid interpretation of the criteria for
encoding new symbols. Is appearing in an industry character set extension
an official phrasing that you
Thanks, that was somehow indeed my very first concern. Everyone could claim
an emoji, at that point.
Enough info for me so far, so thanks again.
Best Regards
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:16 PM, Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Andrea Giammarchi
I like symbols a lot. But I know that I and a number of people have been
thinking that too much emphasis is being put on emoji.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
Doug Ewell:
Most popularly requested, as a criterion for adding a character, is
absolutely new to Unicode. Earlier I wrote privately to a Unicode
officer about whether PERSON TAKING SELFIE and GIRL TWERKING and
PERSON DUMPING ICE BUCKET OVER HEAD would be ephemeral enough, and got
no reply.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Joan Montané j...@montane.cat wrote:
AFAIK, this is done in font side. Emoji flags are just ligatures, so a
font can provide a ligature for 4 RIS characters.
Technically true, but a font that violates the encoding standard would
cause large problems. Imagine a
Le 09/02/2015 13:55, Alfred Zett a écrit :
Additionally, people tend to forget that simply because Unicode is
doing emoji out of compatibility (or other) requirements, it does not
mean that now anything goes. I refer folks to TR51[1] (specifically
sections 1.3, 8, and Annex C).
[1]:
Sorry, my reply was sended CC: to Unicode ML,
My apologies,
Joan Montané
2015-02-09 22:11 GMT+01:00 Joan Montané j...@montane.cat:
Hi all,
I am the one who made the request to tweemoji Github.
2015-02-09 20:16 GMT+01:00 Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 9:54
Shervin Afshar shervinafshar at gmail dot com wrote:
The issue is with your very rigid interpretation of the criteria for
encoding new symbols. Is appearing in an industry character set
extension an official phrasing that you keep referring to?
It was either from the WG2 Principles and
Joan Montané joan at montane dot cat wrote:
I don't request flag support for every flag in the world. I requested
flags for culture/language communities *with* an approved TLD (Top
Level Domain).
Incidentally, about a year and a half ago I discussed this with another
list member, on- and
OK, I will now try to answer all of you in one mail, otherwise it gets
hard to overlook...
Shervin Afshar:
All of the requirements mentioned here can be (and are) implemented in
higher levels of software (like IDEs). IMO, there isn't any need for
adding new characters to Unicode to address
I can't count:
It can be argued — and was, repeatedly and persuasively — that
the initial collection of emoji in Unicode 6.1
6.0
But the additional emoji added to Unicode 6.2 and 7.0
6.1 and 7.0
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org
There is no longer any requirement that the robot faces and
burritos appear first in any sort of industry character set extension,
with which Unicode is then obliged to maintain compatibility.
Only if you don't consider existing usage and popular requests as
requirement and precedence; for
On 9 Feb 2015, at 19:17, Ken Whistler kenwhist...@att.net wrote:
...
The use in C of = and == was badly designed
from the start, and is the source of bezillions of inadvertent programming
errors in practice.
It is the ample oversupply of implicit conversions in combination with the lack
of
And just another follow-up, to try to explain *why* the mechanism for
Regional Indicator Codes might be so closely tied to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
code elements:
ISO 3166-1 codes are derived from code elements published by the United
Nations Statistics Division. This is the group that ultimately
It was either from the WG2 Principles and Procedures document, or some
other bit of Unicode/10646 folklore that I've read over the past 22
years of keeping up with Unicode/10646. I should look up the exact
wording.
Yes, please. I would like to have that policy noted for my future use.
Of
To follow up on Doug Ewell's response, the mechanism currently
standardized in the Unicode Standard for regional indicator codes
has an interpretation tied to the two-letter codes of ISO 3166-1,
and *not* to TLD's. The two are not directly connected.
If anyone really wants to pursue getting a
Frédéric Grosshans:
Le 09/02/2015 13:55, Alfred Zett a écrit :
Additionally, people tend to forget that simply because Unicode is
doing emoji out of compatibility (or other) requirements, it does
not mean that now anything goes. I refer folks to TR51[1]
(specifically sections 1.3, 8, and
Using flags to indicate particular languages on websites has plenty of
problems - languages need a better indicator.
Scripts could be indicated by a representative glyph.
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
29 matches
Mail list logo
