Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt" significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and instead of translating all, the concepts are summarized, reexplained, but still

Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

On 3/5/2018 9:03 AM, suzuki toshiya via Unicode wrote: I have a question; if some people try to make a translated version of Unicode And to add to Asmus' response, folks on the list should understand that even with the best of effort, the concept of a "translated version of Unicode" is a

Re: [Unicode] Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode

On 3/5/2018 9:03 AM, suzuki toshiya via Unicode wrote: I have a question; if some people try to make a translated version of Unicode, they should contact all font contributors and ask for the license? Unicode Consortium cannot

CJK Ideograph Encoding Velocity (was: Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!)

John, I think this may be giving the list a somewhat misleading picture of the actual statistics for encoding of CJK unified ideographs. The "500 characters a year" or "1000 characters a year" limits are administrative limits set by the IRG for national bodies (and others) submitting

Re: [Unicode] Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 9:03 AM, suzuki toshiya via Unicode < unicode@unicode.org> wrote: > I have a question; if some people try to make a > translated version of Unicode, they should contact > all font contributors and ask for the license? > Unicode Consortium cannot give any sublicense? > If

Re: [Unicode] Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode

Hi, I remember, the front page of the code charts by Unicode has following note: Fonts The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts. The particular fonts used in these charts were provided to the

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

Dear All, here is reply to points one and two. On 05.03.2018 16:57, Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: 在 2018年3月5日週一 13:25，Martin J. Dürst via Unicode 寫道： Hello John, On 2018/03/01 12:31, via Unicode wrote: > Pen, or brush and paper is much more flexible. With

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

Dear All, to simplify discussion I have split the points. On 05.03.2018 16:57, Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: 在 2018年3月5日週一 13:25，Martin J. Dürst via Unicode 寫道： Hello John, On 2018/03/01 12:31, via Unicode wrote: Third, I cannot confirm or deny the "500 characters

Re: Emoji as East Asian Width = Wide

I think that fixed-width rendering properties for East-Asian characters was meant only for rendering letters or symbols as plain-text, not for the new rendering with emoji styles. If the symbols are rendered as emojis, these properties don't apply at all, the Emojis style overrides that

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

ah right that's it. 2018年3月5日 19:25 於 "James Kass" 寫道： Phake Nick wrote, > In latin script, as an example, I can simply name myself > "Phake", but in Chinese with current Unicode-based environment, > it would not be possible for me to randomly name myself using > a

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

Phake Nick wrote, > In latin script, as an example, I can simply name myself > "Phake", but in Chinese with current Unicode-based environment, > it would not be possible for me to randomly name myself using > a character ⿰牜爲 Isn't that U+246E8? "䛨"

Re: Unicode Emoji 11.0 characters now ready for adoption!

在 2018年3月5日週一 13:25，Martin J. Dürst via Unicode 寫道： > Hello John, > > On 2018/03/01 12:31, via Unicode wrote: > > > Pen, or brush and paper is much more flexible. With thousands of names > > of people and places still not encoded I am not sure if I would describe > > hans

Fwd: Emoji as East Asian Width = Wide

EAW is used in fixed-width settings to distinguish characters that should take up one space versus two. I would also prefer that all these be considered wide, since otherwise it causes format problems in these settigns. (unfortunately fixed-width appear to be largley ignored by unicode... ) On