On 11/22/2010 10:18 AM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
sowmya satyanarayanasowmya underscore satyanarayana at yahoo dot
com
wrote:
Taking this, what is the best way to define _T(x) macro of
UNICODE version, so
that my strings will always be
2 byte wide character?
Unicode characters aren't always
On 11/22/2010 11:08 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
depending on whether some global compile time flat (usually UNICODE or
_UNICODE) is set or not.
recte: flag.
On 11/23/2010 1:58 AM, sowmya satyanarayana wrote:
This what I am actually looking for. My ODBC application supports
UTF-16, which is 2 byte width characters. This application is
completely oriented around using _T(x) macro as Asmus Freytag figured out.
Yeah, it's nice when you can do
On 6/28/2011 1:51 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 28 Jun 2011, at 09:28, Jean-François Colson wrote:
In Times New Roman, which is the default font for MS Word (probably the best
known word processor), the letters “a” and “ɑ” are indistinguishable in italics.
That is a fault of the font.
No,
On 6/28/2011 1:40 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
Am 28.06.2011 um 09:43 schrieb Jean-François Colson:
I’m interested in Unifon (http://www.unifon.org). That’s a phonemic
alphabet for English which is used to teach reading.
Although it has been encoded in the ConScript Unicode Registry as a
new
On 7/1/2011 12:06 AM, Peter Krefting wrote:
Hi!
On line 65 of
http://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/BidiReferenceCpp/bidi.cpp
(version 26) the word utility is spelled as uitlity (line 80 has
the correct spelling).
Not that it matters much, just something we noticed.
If it's in a comment,
On 7/2/2011 8:59 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/2 Andrew Millera.j.mil...@bcs.org.uk:
The ng in Llangollen is not the digram ng but two separate letters
(unlike the ll in the name which is the digram).
Why not simply using a soft hyphen between n and g in this case ?
Soft hyphens are
On 7/3/2011 6:31 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Regarfing the previous comment about the Danish aa,
Sorry, most of that discussion missed the mark.
Modern Danish can have AA for two reasons. Accidental occurrence, as
in dataanalyse which is composed of two words which just happens to
put two A
On 7/6/2011 12:16 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Allowing word division just to say that some characters do not
constitute a digraph (or trigraph…) is not practical e.g. when the
text has otherwise no word divisions, for one reason or another, or
when the particular word division point is
On 7/7/2011 8:42 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 07/07/2011 02:33 PM, announceme...@unicode.org wrote:
Proposed updates for most Unicode Standard Annexes for Version 6.1 of
the Unicode Standard have been posted for public review.
Many of the documents appear to have no current modifications to
On 7/11/2011 11:57 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 7/10/2011 4:58 PM, Ernest van den Boogaard wrote:
For the long term, I suggest Unicode should aim for this:
That kind of terminological purity isn't going to occur.
...
The Unicode Consortium has a glossary of terms:
...
But the Unicode
Jukka,
reminding everyone of the definition of technical term as opposed to a
word in everyday language isn't helping address the underlying issue.
Everyone is familiar with this distinction.
You note that there's a bit of a truism that underlies the definition of
character and character
On 7/15/2011 1:08 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
In WG2 N4085 Further proposed additions to ISO/IEC 10646 and comments to other
proposals (2011‐
05‐25), the German NB had requested re WG2 N4022 Proposal to add Wingdings and
Webdings
Symbols besides other points:
Also, in doing this work, other
On 7/15/2011 9:03 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Andrew Westandrewcwest at gmail dot com replied to Michael Everson:
I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we
already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument
about too many characters is not compelling, as
On 7/15/2011 2:23 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 10:58 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
AF ... There appear to be a large number of symbols for which a
AF Unicode equivalent can be identified with great certainty -
AF and beyond that there seem to be characters for which such
AF
On 7/15/2011 10:26 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
What I see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism. Text
about the Standard is important, and should be representable in an
interchangeable way. Here { } is a Right to left override character. character.
I want to talk about
On 7/15/2011 11:05 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
What I see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism. Text
about the Standard is important, and should be representable in an
interchangeable way. Here { } is a Right to left override character. character.
I want to talk about it
On 7/15/2011 11:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
However, I agree with Asmus that in the context of the Wingdings-type symbols
these characters should not be considered. They should be considered as a whole
on their own.
Thank you Michael.
To reiterate and restate (so it can be read out of
On 7/15/2011 10:48 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
I apologize for the unintended content-free post. It's my phone's fault.
--
My dog ate the homework - 2011?
:)
A./
On 7/16/2011 1:53 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 16 Jul 2011, at 04:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
It's not a matter of competing views. There's a well-defined process for
adding characters to the standard. It starts by documenting usage.
Yes, Asmus, and when one wants to do that, one writes
Karl,
I've published similar surveys in the past, where the object was to
get feedback on the desirability of further action. I stick by my
recommendation in favor of keeping raw data out of the document
registry and of doing the committee a favor by adding value in form of
a sifting or
On 7/17/2011 2:47 AM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 10:14:55AM +0100, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Wouldn't it be more economical to encode a single UNICODE ESCAPE
CHARACTER which forces the following character to be interpreted as a
printable glyph rather than any control function?
On 7/17/2011 12:19 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus wrote:
The reason is, of course, because these codes would *reinterpret* existing
characters. You could argue that Variation Selectors do the same, but they are
carefully constructed so that they can be safely ignored.
Variation selectors
On 7/17/2011 12:19 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/7/17 Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com:
On 7/17/2011 2:35 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
... invisible and stateful control characters are more expensive than
ordinary graphic symbols.
In this case, the expense is so much higher as to rule out
On 8/14/2011 1:39 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
U+00B5 MICRO SIGN is an ISO-8859-1 character, and was therefore
included as U+00B5. It normally precedes a Latin-script letter, and
therefore it actually makes sense to treat it as a Latin-script
character, and possibly give it a different shape
On 8/14/2011 12:51 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
14.8.2011 17:51, Doug Ewell wrote:
This sounds like Jukka expects browsers to analyze the glyph assigned in
the font to the code position for 'a' and decline to display it if it
doesn't look enough like an 'a' (rejecting, for example, Greek 'α').
On 8/16/2011 1:57 AM, Andrew West wrote:
On 16 August 2011 02:59, Richard Wordingham
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
All I've got to go on is the penultimate sentence in TUS 6.0 Section
10.2 - 'Rarely, stacks are seen that contain more than one such
consonant-vowel combination in a
On 8/16/2011 3:32 PM, Andrew West wrote:
On 16 August 2011 18:19, Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
These stacks are highly unusual and are considered beyond the scope
of plain text rendering. They may be handled by higher-level
mechanisms.
The question is: have any such mechanisms
On 8/18/2011 7:29 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Karl Pentzlinkarl dash pentzlin at acssoft dot de wrote:
The quoted indicators for benefit were part of a concern of the German
NB regarding the Wingding/Webding proposals. The concern expressed in
WG2 N4085 is that some characters proposed there
On 8/19/2011 2:35 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
20.8.2011 0:07, Doug Ewell wrote:
Of course, 2.1 billion characters is also overkill, but the advent of
UTF-16 was how we ended up with 17 planes.
And now we think that a little over a million is enough for everyone,
just as they thought in the
On 8/19/2011 3:24 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 8/19/2011 2:07 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Technically, I think 10646 was always limited to 32,768 planes so that
one could always address a code point with a 32-bit signed integer (a
nod to the Java fans).
Well, yes, but it didn't really have anything
On 8/20/2011 6:44 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Would that really be a better default? I thought the main RTL needs for the PUA
would be for unencoded scripts, not for even more Arabic letters. (How many
more are there anyway?)
In any case, either 'R' or 'AL' as the Plane 16 default would be an
On 8/21/2011 3:31 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:00:26 -0600
Doug Ewelld...@ewellic.org wrote:
I think as soon as we start talking about this many scenarios, we are
no longer talking about what the *default* bidi class of the PUA (or
some part of it) should be. Instead,
On 8/21/2011 7:34 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
So what you are asking about is a directional control character that would
assign subsequent characters a BC of 'AL', right?
You don't want to call this a LANGUAGE MARK or anything else that implies language
identification, because of the existence of
Huh? What context is this in?
On 8/22/2011 11:18 AM, CE Whitehead wrote:
Hi.
I think many line breaks within paragraphs are soft line breaks but
that embedding levels have to be taken into account when deciding the
width of the glyphs; that's as near as I can tell.
Here is the description
On 8/23/2011 7:22 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Of all applications, a word processor or DTP application would want to
know more about the properties of characters than just whether they are
RTL. Line breaking, word breaking, and case mapping come to mind.
I would think the format used by standard UCD
On 8/23/2011 12:00 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:18:56 -0700
Ken Whistlerk...@sybase.com wrote:
How about Clause 12.5 of ISO/IEC 10646:
001B, 0025, 0040
You escape out of UTF-16 to ISO 2022, and then you can do whatever
the heck you want, including exchange and
On 8/24/2011 7:45 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Which earlier coding system supported Welsh? (I'm thinking of 'W WITH
CIRCUMFLEX', U+0174 and U+0175.) How was the use of the canonical
decompositions incompatible with the character encodings of legacy
systems? Latin-1 has the same codes as
I agree with Ken that Phillipe's suggestion of conflating the
annotations for mathematical use with formal Unicode name aliases is a
non-starter. The former exist to help mathematicians identify symbols in
Unicode, when they know their name from entity lists. The latter are
designed to allow
On 8/26/2011 10:09 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/8/27 Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com:
I agree with Ken that Phillipe's suggestion of conflating the annotations
for mathematical use with formal Unicode name aliases is a non-starter.
Yes but why then adding ISO 6429 alias names ? What makes
On 8/26/2011 7:52 PM, Benjamin M Scarborough wrote:
Are name aliases exempted from the normal character naming conventions? I ask
because four of the entries have words that begin with numbers.
008E;SINGLE-SHIFT 2;control
008F;SINGLE-SHIFT 3;control
0091;PRIVATE USE 1;control
0092;PRIVATE USE
On 8/27/2011 1:31 AM, Andrew West wrote:
On 27 August 2011 09:25, Andrew Westandrewcw...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 August 2011 03:52, Benjamin M Scarborough
benjamin.scarboro...@utdallas.edu wrote:
Are name aliases exempted from the normal character naming conventions? I ask
because four of
On 8/28/2011 9:46 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
If there are other mappings to do with other standards, and those
standards must be only informative, we already have the /MAPPINGS
directory beside the /UNIDATA directory where the UCD belongs too.
But in general, with the
On 8/28/2011 6:43 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/8/27 Asmus Freytagasm...@ix.netcom.com:
I also think that the status field iso6429 is badly named. It should be
control, and what is named control should be control-alternate, or
perhaps, both of these groups should become simply control. I think
On 8/31/2011 11:25 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2011/9/1 Karl Williamsonpub...@khwilliamson.com:
But now that I'm an UTC member, I hope I will hear these cases earlier...
Congratulations!
Does it justify so many new aliases at the same time ?
No. I'm firmly with you, I support the
On 9/9/2011 8:12 PM, Stephan Stiller wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thanks for alerting me to the issue of causal direction of aesthetic
preference - it's been on my mind, but your reply helps me sort out
some details.
When I first encountered text (outside of the German language locale)
with ample
On 9/13/2011 6:01 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Unfortunately, adding controls would imply the creation of new Bidi
classes for them (and forgetting the stability policy about them,
which was published too soon before solving evident problems).
The first part is correct, and giving up stability to
On 9/14/2011 11:14 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
At this point, I think I have to make a plea: Sarasvati, spare us.
+1
On 10/7/2011 11:27 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
The context I have in mind is a computer that largely sticks to the ASCII
tradition, but otherwise uses new Unicode additions to make input more
math-like.
Hans,
that's essentially the same goal as behind the design of the
Mathematics Linear Format
Murray's work comes from the desire to represent mathematical equations
faithfully, based nearly entirely on the semantics of the operators and
having those operators be represented as Unicode characters.
One solution that he uses is the use of redundant parens. Parens can
be supplied to
On 10/13/2011 10:23 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On 10/13/2011 09:47 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I'd like to have an opinion about why this chart (for example)
describes two code points 09E4 and 09E5 asreserved, without
assigning any glyph, but still associating them with other punctuation
signs
On 11/9/2011 1:18 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
I tried to find something like a normative description of the default
bidi class of unassigned code points.
In UTR #9, it says
(http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/tr9-23.html#Bidirectional_Character_Types):
Unassigned characters are given strong
On 11/9/2011 6:08 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On 11/09/2011 03:58 PM, Larson, Timothy E. wrote:
Hello!
I'm new here, but have already read some of the online documentation
for proposing new characters. I'm still a bit unsure how to go about
it. Or even who can do it. Can individuals
On 11/14/2011 7:30 AM, Naena Guru wrote:
Unicode was created for a commercial reason, particularly for the
benefit of its directors.
This statement, not backed up by evidence, indicates a rather
rudimentary understanding of the forces that were behind the creation of
the universal character
On 11/14/2011 6:09 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Am Montag, 14. November 2011 um 14:37 schrieb satai:
s E.g. if we take designation of number 123 in Cyrillic, it should be
s РКГ below the single titlo/tilde. How N4078 handles it? (I mean
s particular characters sequence)
If you want РКГ with a
On 11/15/2011 8:22 AM, Larson, Timothy E. wrote:
I certainly can appreciate the argument for encoding only textual characters
that already have demonstrated use cases. You can't include every imaginable
thing, so you have to draw a line somewhere.
On the other hand, it appears to me that by
On 11/15/2011 7:55 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
It is different. ... If the title of page is in Latin script
displayed as Singhala by a font, I can't display Latin and Singhala
titles in tabs without accepting the font of the page or manually
changing fonts.
It is not different. It boils down to
Peter,
in principle, the idea of a provisional status is a useful concept
whenever one wants to publish something based on potentially doubtful
or possibly incomplete information. And you are correct, that, in
principle, such an approach could be most useful whenever there's no
possibility
On 11/16/2011 6:37 AM, Peter Cyrus wrote:
I guess what I'm proposing is that the proposed allocations be
implemented, so that problems may be unearthed, even as the users
accept that the standard is still only provisional.
Where users are programmers, such as is the case with certain
On 11/18/2011 1:30 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 11/16/2011 07:25 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
The whole reason that some aspects of character encoding are write
once (can never be changed) is to prevent such obsolete data in
documents.
How is this different from Named sequences, which
On 11/18/2011 3:06 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 11/18/2011 1:30 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
How is this different from Named sequences, which are published
provisionally?
Named sequences aren't character properties.
The provide information about characters in context - in that sense they
are
What is missing here is the recognition that having a *standard*
way of expressing such features (text scoring) is desirable. Suggesting
that this be left of one-off implementations or some markup language
is not helpful to people interested in using such features.
What is, of course. equally
On 11/20/2011 8:00 AM, Joó Ádám wrote:
Leaving aside that CSS is presentation and not content, and is
definitely not markup. HTML is a better candidate.
Á
The details of the appearance of the mark would be presentation.
The scoping, like for applying every other style feature, would have to
a description of the characters appearance in many
cases does not alter that fact.
A./
J.
On 22 Nov 2011, at 20:35, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/22/2011 11:02 AM, a...@peoplestring.com
mailto:a...@peoplestring.com wrote:
Hi!
In one of the discussions in this community, it was stated
On 11/23/2011 2:38 AM, Jeremie Hornus wrote:
On 23 Nov 2011, at 00:21, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/22/2011 1:22 PM, Jeremie Hornus wrote:
Wouldn't be Unicode Character Glyph Description more accurate than
Unicode Character Name ?
And just Unicode Character Description for those pointing
On 12/12/2011 11:54 AM, Peter Cyrus wrote:
I'm sure this is explained somewhere, but I can't find it.
Must blocks leave the first and last codepoints unassigned?
Which blocks were you looking at - if you had looked around you'd not
find many examples with 00 unfilled, a few more with FF
On 1/8/2012 1:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
I think if this were encoded, I think people might want to use it was
explicitly not a reason to encode something.
Doug,
I think you are possibly overstating this slightly.
As often quoted, it's a maxim intended to guard against encoding
characters
On 1/9/2012 9:29 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus Freytagasmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
I think if this were encoded, I think people might want to use it
was explicitly not a reason to encode something.
I think you are possibly overstating this slightly.
As often quoted, it's a maxim
On 1/9/2012 2:52 AM, vanis...@boil.afraid.org wrote:
From: Asmus Freytagasmusf_at_ix.netcom.com
I have no opinion on the Upside-down FU ideograph as a candidate for
encoding, but I think any analysis of its merits needs to be more
nuanced than what your message seemed to imply.
A./
While I
Philip,
In your text, you write:
Geometric shapes are normally centred on the math axis, and may be
presumed to be independent of the baseline. The height of the math axis
above the baseline, however, and consideration of caps height, x-height,
etc, can be expected to produce
On 1/9/2012 2:40 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus,
I think I see your point. Certainly I didn't intend to take the
experience of encoding the emoji characters and promote it as some sort
of preferred path for getting characters encoded in Unicode. Far from
it.
Rather, I was trying to describe the
John,
while I can imagine that I'll be perfectly able to live without these
particular characters encoded, I disagree with your take on these.
For one, it seems reasonably clear from evidence in the discussion that
these characters do not form part of the standard Han writing system,
just
On 1/13/2012 10:50 AM, John H. Jenkins wrote:
Asmus Freytag 於 2012年1月13日 上午11:01 寫道：
Nobody has written a formal proposal yet.
When that is done, then one of the questions that needs to be decided
in initial triage is whether these are elements of the han script
proper or iconic symbols
On 1/30/2012 2:19 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote:
Dear Unicode community,
I would like to ask whether I and the community I belong to, W3C HTML5
Chinese Interest Group, are allowed to translate Unicode Technical
Reports (and other documents such as UAXs).
You will need permission - please use
On 2/4/2012 2:55 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
And so here we go again, yet another.
Doug,
for something completely different, check out the Unicode Forum
http://unicode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21t=254
where you'll find an open the link to an interesting set of characters
being proposed.
On 2/23/2012 2:44 PM, António Martins-Tuválkin wrote:
On 2012/2/23 Matt Mamatt.ma.um...@gmail.com wrote:
It is defined as
33D7;SQUARE PH;So;0;L;square 0050 0048N;SQUARED PH
in UnicodeData.txt, but it is shown as pH in code chart. Should it be
0070 0048 or PH?
It should certainly be
On 3/5/2012 10:25 AM, Andreas Prilop wrote:
I think the zero-width joiner (ZWJ, U+200D) should join
regardless of typeface. But Internet Explorer 8 won't join
if the ZWJ is taken from another font than surrounding text.
Normally, there's a bit of a rationale for limiting the action of the
ZWJ
On 3/6/2012 1:57 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Regarding e.g. the "combining œ with breve" as shown on p.24 9th line
(see attached scan), this seems to be an "intermediate sound" "u + œ",
to which the breve is applied as a whole (which means, not
surprisingly, «voyelle
On 3/30/2012 5:36 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Le 30 mars 2012 20:08, Julian Bradfieldjcb+unic...@inf.ed.ac.uk a écrit :
On 2012-03-30, Andreas Prilopprilop4...@trashmail.net wrote:
I think a better idea is to have joining glyphs always even for
different typefaces. At least the Unicode
On 4/3/2012 11:14 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 4/3/2012 9:51 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
My assumption is the page uses JS to get the dates? Since my user
locale happened to be set to Klingon, that’s what it displayed.
Exactly. There is a call to:
Date(document.lastModified).toLocaleString() in
On 4/3/2012 1:49 PM, Elsebeth Flarup wrote:
If the visible display of the value of the Last-Modified header
(which may or may not reflect the actual last modification time) is
regarded as useful, it should of course be in the same language as the
rest of the page.
I completely disagree.
On 4/3/2012 3:59 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Yes but HTTP headers are still not part of the page content itself. It
is unrelated and only needed for the HTTP protocol and management of
caches inclding in proxies. Those headers are by definition not
translatable by the server. Only the brower may
On 4/4/2012 2:01 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
.. there are good reasons why a date displayed in a page could
be formatted differently from other dates in the same page, when they
are in fact part of different contents each one using its language.
Multilingual pages are frequent, and this is why we
On 4/15/2012 7:30 PM, Rick McGowan wrote:
At Wiktionary, we're looking at ẘ (U+1E98) and
we can't figure out where it came from.
Good catch. It's obviously another stowaway...
Just throw it in the brig until we can get around to deporting it.
The 1E00 and 1F00 blocks were populated, in
On 4/16/2012 9:23 AM, arno.s wrote:
Am 16/04/2012 15:55, schrieb Andreas Prilop:
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, David Starner wrote:
At Wiktionary, we're looking at (U+1E98) and we can't figure out
where it came from. It's from Unicode 1.1, which makes it hard to look
up discussion on adding it, and the
Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the problem
is often that there's no specification as to what certain languages
need, so that fonts cannot be expected to provide the correct
implementation.
When Unicode was first created, the fact that one and the same quotation
Darcula and other novels aside, there are applications where text volume
definitely matters.
One I've come across in my work is transaction-log filtering. Logs, like
http logs, can generate rather interesting streams of text data, where
the volume easily becomes so large that merely
On 4/30/2012 12:27 PM, Bill Poser wrote:
Digital typography has reached The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/errant-keystroke-produces-character-never-before-s,28030/.
Quote:
, it is, in all likelihood, "probably just another goddamn
fertility
On 4/30/2012 1:25 PM, John H. Jenkins wrote:
Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com 於
2012年4月30日 下午1:59 寫道：
On 4/30/2012 12:27 PM, Bill Poser wrote:
Digital typography has reached /The Onion/:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/errant-keystroke-produces-character
I don't understand what the ruckus is about.
Looking at the samples, simple observation yields two points:
a) the little superscript letters give an immediate and powerful guide
to the eye. There simply is no way you can be confused as to the
writing direction of a text snippet (as apposed to
On 5/2/2012 8:33 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 23:43 -0700 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
Even if some minutiae of glyph selection are left to a font, the problem
is often that there's no specification as to what certain languages
need, so that fonts cannot be expected
On 5/2/2012 5:20 AM, Michael Probst wrote:
Am Montag, den 30.04.2012, 16:59 +0200 schrieb Andreas Prilop:
Actually, the case is quite simple.
Alas, it isn't :-) Or why is it that the discussion you pointed me at
(Danke!) quickly strayed from the topic, got hotter than useful and
seems to have
Sometimes you are not free to choose what you would like.
One thing that's off the table is a new character code.
The reason for that categorical statement is that there is too much data
and software out that uses the existing character codes. Throwing a new
character into the mix will just
On 5/3/2012 5:50 AM, suzuki toshiya wrote:
Thanks!
Michael Everson wrote:
I am forwarding this query to my colleagues in Nunavut.
Well, it's an incomplete query and because of that, you will get an
incomplete result.
It may give an answer on what the preference would be in handling small
On 5/5/2012 3:02 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
In other words, the characters in the top and bottom rows are unified
in Unicode, according to both the Microsoft-provided mappings for
CP950 and (for the four listed code points) the obsolete Unicode
mapping for Big5. One would probably need to provide a
First question:
When the integral symbols were encoded in Unicode there was
discussion of the fact that these were deliberately unifying an
upright and a slanted style of integral.
Now, I'm pretty sure that I've seen both styles in print at
some point, but I can't seem to find any TrueType or
Where can I lay my hands of a font that contains slanted integrals?
A./
On 5/6/2012 10:49 PM, philip chastney wrote:
*From:* Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
*To:* Unicode Mailing List unicode@unicode.org
*Sent
On 5/16/2012 9:46 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
No, it's not.
Including x in Lao for some pedagogical (I'm guessing) purpose is
completely out of scope. That'd be like including π in Latin because
it sometimes occurs in the middle of English text.
Before this discussion deep ends.
There is an early precedent, going back to the Euro sign, of Unicode
adding a new character instead of repurposing any existing character
that may seem to be unused.
The principle there is, that until a particular currency gets actually
created (or a
On 5/22/2012 2:22 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 22 May 2012, at 06:51, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
In line with what was decided for the EURO SIGN (20AC) vs. the EURO-CURRENCY
SIGN (20A0), I find it difficult to agree with Michael on the speculative
question of any possibly emerging new Greek
401 - 500 of 1250 matches
Mail list logo
