On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:34:17 -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
[…]
> Just get over it […]
We are facing a strong user demand since early standards.
Actually I cannot. Sorry.
Thank you however for all of your feedback.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +, Alastair Houghton wrote:
[…]
> […] I think
On 1/10/2017 2:54 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:12:47 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Unicode clearly doesn't forbid most sequences in complex scripts,
even if they cannot be expected to render properly and otherwise
would stump the native reader.
Is
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:12:47 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Unicode clearly doesn't forbid most sequences in complex scripts,
> even if they cannot be expected to render properly and otherwise
> would stump the native reader.
Is this expectation based on sequence enforcement
On 1/10/2017 12:44 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:06:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
I'll take your last point first.
One might hope that the subsection about 'logical order' in TUS 9.0
Section 2.2
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +
Alastair Houghton wrote:
> Does anyone besides Marcel have any input on that idea? Is it worth
> writing a proposal to add SUPERSCRIPT and SUBSCRIPT? To give some
> examples:
>
> S^{té}
>
> U+0053 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S
>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:06:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
I'll take your last point first.
>> One might hope that the subsection about 'logical order' in TUS 9.0
>> Section 2.2 Unicode Design Principles would help, but:
>>
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:11:41 +0100
Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> What I really wish we had would be a machine readable set of regexes
> for each complex script (and for each language-script combination
> that is different than the default for that script).
What would the status of
These kinds of regexes are being
developed in various contexts.
For example, there's a group developing regexes for Indic scripts
for use with CSS. That effort focuses on the syllable, not least
because concepts like "first-letter" used in CSS are not
Le 10/01/2017 à 12:03, Alastair Houghton a écrit :
That’s part of it, but I think also that the thread is increasingly verbose and
hard to follow.
I still think that the idea of adding U+ SUPERSCRIPT and U+ SUBSCRIPT
might be worth contemplating; it would seem to provide a good answer
On 9 Jan 2017, at 22:34, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> On 1/9/2017 1:39 PM, Marcel Schneider wrote:
>> Iʼm saddened to have fallen into a monologue. Thus Iʼll quickly debrief
>> the arguments opposed so far, to check whether Iʼm missing some point
>>
> There's a good reason
What I really wish we had would be a machine readable set of regexes for
each complex script (and for each language-script combination that is
different than the default for that script).
Such a regex R could be used for determining the well-formed ordering of
code points within words. The regex
On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham
wrote:
Where, if anywhere, is the encoding of plain text specified? I am
particularly concerned with the arrangement of the code sequences for
non-spacing abstract characters once one has determined an encoding for
the
12 matches
Mail list logo