Kent Karlsson wrote:
The original model for these was that your text processing is done in
non-Braille, and on the last leg to a device, you would transcode the
regular text to a Braille sequence using a domain and
language specific
mapping. Having the codes in Unicode allows you to preserve
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 08/10/2003 21:55, Jungshik Shin wrote:
...
I've got a question about the cursor movement and
selection in Hebrew text with such a grapheme (made up of 6 Unicode
characters). What would be ordinary users' expectation when delete,
backspace, and arrow keys(for cursor
Looking over the Public Review Issues... trying to scramble up the
learning curve and make sense of some of what it's talking about...
Here's a comment.
I think U+05C3 HEBREW PUNCTUATION SOF PASUQ should probably also be in
Sentence_Terminal. I suppose it's true that there are Biblical verses
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Due to that, there's a big risk that PUAs start being permanently assigned
as part of a OS core charset, and that data created on distinct systems
become mutually incompatible as they are using colliding subsets of PUAs
(this is already the case in core fonts and script
John Cowan wrote:
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
It seems a simple enough case to argue - EITHER the 0x11 character
space is amply big enough for everyone, as John Cowan asserts.
Big enough for everyone, but not for everything. Encoding Klingon has
a cost beyond the allocation of
Rick McGowan wrote:
Jill Ramonsky wrote...
It seems to me that if 0x11 codepoints isn't a big enough space to fit in
the Klingon alphabet (and other alphabets which were similarly rejected)
then we need more codepoints. Simple as that.
Rejection of Klingon has *absolutely* nothing
That's what I mean. We'd better shut down the list.
~mark
Peter Constable wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Doesn't *everyting* take time from other proposals?
You mean, discussions like
Michael Everson wrote:
It strikes me that the controversy about Klingon has more to do with
its fictional origins than number of users. Is this not true?
I don't think so. We will certainly encode Tengwar and Cirth, which
have corpora of documents in them. Klingonists universally prefer
John Cowan wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
I'm attaching a screenshot of http://www.kli.org/QQ/QQ0202.html?mode=UTF
which SHOULD be a Unicode encoding. This is with Mozilla 1.4 and
Code2000. Even people who can read pIqaD can't read this. The qapla'
page works okay, but note that only
John Hudson wrote:
At 11:59 AM 10/17/2003, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
And of course, there's all that discussion on Tolkien languages
online... all of which used Latin transliteration (with slightly
varying standards too: accented vowels, doubled vowels, tripled
sometimes, etc etc. More than
Michael Everson wrote:
The example of Shavian might eventually be precedent for Klingon to be
encoded, but for the present one web page on the KLI's own web site
does not seem to me to be sufficient evidence to meet the usage
requirements. Press on, Mark.
I plan to. I've been collecting
Jony Rosenne wrote:
While the current combining classes may cause some difficulties for Biblical
scholars (and this isn't cut and dry yet - it isn't certain whether these
are Unicode problem, implementation problems, missing characters or
mis-identified characters), I have yet to see a claimed
I remembered there was a lot of discussion about this case, which is why
I brought it up. Can someone remind me why ZWNBSP would be Bad for
this? Wrong RTL coding? (possibly, but it's weak, isn't it) Wrongly
indicates a word-break? (this is probably a problem.)
~mark
John Hudson wrote:
At
Message contents removed due to DMCA takedown letter. See http://www.chillingeffects.org/ for more information about the DMCA.
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 28/10/2003 18:49, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I just finished an Excel speadsheet that shows the Hebrew composition
model,
and all the problems caused by the canonical order of Hebrew diacritics.
In summary, most problems come from consonnant modifiers which have a
combining
When I first heard about hexadecimal, I thought that using A-F for
digits lacked imagination, and risked confusion with letters besides. I
made up a set of digits, as I recall, and even names for them.
I'm not completely convinced this is a bad idea. But it's likely.
~mark
Michael Everson
Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 17:54 +0100 2003-11-09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When we encode Tifinagh we will encode Tifinagh. We will not
meta-encode it for ease of transliteration to other scripts.
Chris Jacobs wrote:
As long as the font is explicitly advertized as a 'font with built-in
transliterator', as long as the people know that what you see is not what is
in the text, this seems to me indeed a good idea.
Would be nice for Klingon too :-)
Got one already. Several, really.
Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:14 -0800 2003-11-10, Curtis Clark wrote:
Why isn't Latin Serbian just Cyrillic Serbian with funny glyphs?
Because Latin and Serbian are self-evidently different scripts.
I'm not trying to be intentionally dense here; Theban English and
Serbian are different in
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
You seem to forget that Tifinagh is not a unified script, but a set of
separate
scripts where the same glyphs are used with distinct semantic functions.
I think Philippe is running off the rails here.
Tifinagh is a script. It comes in a
Doug Ewell wrote:
I think such a collection of symbols A becomes a cipher for a true
script B when it replicates the usage of symbols in B, irregularities
and all. In the Pigpen cipher, there is a symbol for C and one for T
and one for H, and C+H and T+H are slapped together *exactly* as they
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
...the original issue of _whether or not there should exist Unicode
characters for which IsDigit() returns true and for which
GetDigitValue() returns values in the range ten to fifteen_.
If/when Tengwar gets coded, it will have digits for 10 and 11, as it
uses base-12.
I
Doug Ewell wrote:
jameskass at att dot net wrote:
... and not one which somehow converted James' UTF-8
into Mojibake as above.
This may be the fault of my ISP, the illustrious ATT's Webmail.
It may not properly tag my outgoing messages as UTF-8. A colleague
has written privately to
I haven't tested this myself, but from a look at the source code, it
appears that pfaedit (pfaedit.sourceforge.net) can generate format12
TTFs. (Open Source, for UNIX).
~mark
On 11/20/03 03:12, Arcane Jill wrote:
Is anyone able to answer this? I for one would really like to know.
Thanks
On 11/24/03 01:26, Doug Ewell wrote:
So the question becomes: Is it legitimate for a Unicode compression
engine -- SCSU, BOCU-1, or other -- to convert text such as Hangul into
another (canonically equivalent) normalization form to improve its
compressibility?
OK, this *is* a fascinating
Neat. Not only did the version of Opera I happened to have fail to open
it, but my whole X server crashed.
(Guess someone has a fragile setup).
~mark, in a fresh session
On 11/24/03 21:53, Mark Davis wrote:
I remembered that I had done something with making a Unicode Poster some time
ago.
On 11/24/03 20:56, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This approach would certainly have simplified pointed Hebrew a lot, so
much so that it could well be serious. After all, Ethiopic was encoded
as a syllabary just because the vowel points happen to have become
I tried the chart where I teach, on RedHat Linux 9 and Mozilla 1.2 or
1.4 (I forget which) and it came through fine, if small.
~mark
On 11/25/03 15:05, John Cowan wrote:
Mozilla Firebird 0.7/WinXP had no problem with the Chart, though it
was a little slow to open and even slower to print it.
Shouldn't it permit assa and aßa to co-exist? It isn't like ß is
canonically equivalent to ss (if I read the file aright, it isn't even
compatibility equivalent). It's a language-dependent choice to regard
them as equivalent. I'd guess that should be the responsibility of the
de_DE
On 12/01/03 09:57, Arcane Jill wrote:
I believe that A is not canonically equivalent to a, but you still
can't have filenames A and a coexisting in the same Windows
folder. This is a consequence of having a case-insensitive filesystem.
As to whether or not the case-equivalence of ss and ß
On 12/01/03 11:46, Mark Davis wrote:
It is useful to read the standard before asserting something about it. If you
don't have a hard-copy of the standard, you can always consult the online
version. In this case, see 3.13 Default Case Operations in
On 12/02/03 18:32, Philippe Verdy wrote:
One way to achieve this is to only allow embedding of embeddable fonts
within unmodifiable documents. This means a export for publication
function in word processors, which should be the only way to create first a
unmodifiable and signed document content,
I particularly like the use of U+E631 SEUSS LETTER WUM for the PUA.
~mark
On 12/02/03 14:03, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:35 -0800 2003-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
Have you looked at the Apple Last Resort font? Knowing from what
character block an unsupported character comes is handy, but I
On 12/05/03 21:00, Michael Everson wrote:
At 17:39 -0800 2003-12-05, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter,
For those situations in which unmarked-case glottal has been used, I
think it would cause the least confusion to leave 0294 as a cap-height
glyph, and call it upper case.
I don't have time
On 12/07/03 07:25, Peter Jacobi wrote:
[..] Display engines
need to do a better job of applying style to individual reordrant
glyphs, that's all.
I fully agree with this, Do you know any display engine which is capable
of this?
I also agree, but I point out that the sufficiently perverse
On 12/07/03 08:55, Peter Jacobi wrote:
Hi Mark, All,
I also agree, but I point out that the sufficiently perverse could come
up with some pretty tough examples. Applying color is a pretty benign
style, but what if I wanted a boldface circumflex on a normal letter?
Or even more obnoxious,
On 12/08/03 18:21, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
And not complete. That is simply the draft for the PDAM
(preliminary draft amendment) to 10646. It will be subject
to national ballot comments, which will, no doubt, result
in further additions, as well as some minor modifications to
what is currently
On 12/08/03 14:16, Peter Constable wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Mark E. Shoulson
(and now I contradict myself with a counterexample. In
http://omega.enstb.org/yannis/pdf/biblical-hebrew94.pdf, Yannis
Haralambous notes--correctly--that when
On 12/09/03 02:26, Peter Constable wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Kenneth Whistler
Nobody is agitating for an uppercase
apostrophe.
Not in Canada, that I know of. (I've seen indication of languages in Russia that have a case distinction for ' and possible also .)
Early
On 12/14/03 07:26, Michael Everson wrote:
The following story was forwarded to me. The offending characters in
question are, I take it, the left-facing and right-facing swastika
symbols, often used in Tibetan, found among the Chinese ideographs at
U+534D (yung-drung-chi-khor) and U+5350
? Steven Heller, ISBN
1-588115-041-5
~mark
On 12/14/03 11:11, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
At 10:28 AM -0500 12/14/03, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I'm embarrassed to admit it, but I find myself thinking that the
swastika, THE Nazi swastika, right-facing, tilted 45, proper ratio
of stroke-thickness
On 12/15/03 08:42, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Holocaust scholars wanting to encode German documents from the 1930s
and 1940s would want the double runic S encoded, since this was a
specific character found on type-writers of the era and saw regular use.
Would U+16CB U+16CB be a reasonable
On 12/15/03 07:54, Tom Emerson wrote:
Holocaust scholars wanting to encode German documents from the 1930s
and 1940s would want the double runic S encoded, since this was a
specific character found on type-writers of the era and saw regular use.
A proposal to encode this was shot down a few years
On 12/15/03 09:43, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Is this like baseball scoreboards showing the third consecutive
strikeout symbol (which is a K) reversed? Is that to avoid KKK or
is it for another reason?
Which of course begs the question of whether we should encode a LATIN
CAPITAL REVERSED K
On 12/15/03 11:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With the runes though it isn't just double sigels that have the second
mirrored, but all double letters. FWIW not only are the sources I learnt this
from not reliable on the history of the Futhark, being concerned only with the
modern occult use, but
On 12/15/03 12:10, Michael Everson wrote:
I am not certain that the existing code position is satisfactory for
non-CJK use. That is, Tibetan, Norse, Native American, Scouting use,
and so on. Those NEVER show Han brush-stroke shapes. I would like to
see some discussion about whether the
On 12/18/03 06:54, Peter Kirk wrote:
You will find that the spellings mill (19,600 Google matches) and
milli (709,000 matches, but not all are Turkish) are
interchangeable, but mill is rare (52 matches) and so probably an
error.
Wouldn't ?mill be a violation of Turkish vowel-harmony rules?
On 12/19/03 03:05, Arcane Jill wrote:
Another minor US/UK difference is that shift 2 is double quotes in
England, not @.
I remember my old TRS-80 had double-quotes on shift-2 as well. I
half-remember that it had something to do with the bit-patterns, so the
shift key could work by applying a
On 12/23/03 19:40, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Could you instead take the time to work on the missing Latin
letters for African languages? Why isn't there any serious
work about these living languages that don't have lot of
universitary support and nearly no computer resources in
Africa to make this
On 12/24/03 15:02, Elaine Keown wrote:
Some of the sets of symbols I found---which I simply
assumed could be added to Hebrew--are innately
controversial because of the Roadmap.
What sorts of things do you mean, Elaine? Innately controversial
sounds like a pretty strong term, and while I
On 12/25/03 16:46, Elaine Keown wrote:
Elaine Keown
Dear Mark and List:
Some of the sets of symbols I found--- snip
--are innately controversial because of the
Roadmap.
Examples of innately controversial for Mark:
I think Hebrew's been written since 1,150 B.C. But at
On 12/26/03 09:57, Michael Everson wrote:
Every historian of writing describes the various scripts *as* scripts,
and recognizes them differently. We have bilinguals where people are
distinguishing the scripts in text; we have discussion, for instance
in the Babylonian Talmud, specifically
On 12/26/03 15:27, Michael Everson wrote:
At 17:46 + 2003-12-26, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
(Though the Roman style Fraktur style of Latin script are probably
more
different from each other as some of the separately encoded Indic
scripts [e.g. Kannada / Telugu])
Sorry, Chris, this is
On 12/28/03 18:34, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is very interesting to me that there does seem to have been a glyph
distinction (though a very subtle one) between sin and shin, in the
serech example
(http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/programs/Altman/serech.jpg) of
what is undoubtedly (in Unicode
On 01/05/04 08:04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Regarding dotless-i-with hook...
and case mappings with each other. Both solutions maintains the distinction
with Latin oi (gha) and with the latin soft sign (small b).
Can we leave OI/gha out of this? Near as I can tell the *only*
relevance it has to
On 01/13/04 05:40, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
This one also looks dangerous.
What do you mean by dangerous? This is an heuristic algorithm, so it is
only supposed to work always but only in some lucky cases.
If lucky cases average to, say, 20% or less then it is a bad and
I had a problem with this too, for a while (previous discussion on this
list helped clear it up). Klingon letters had been placed in the PUA by
the CSUR (ConsScript Unicode Registry, an unofficial allocation of PUA
space to constructed alphabets), based on the PUA assignment of the
Linux
No, not because the font uses the PUA. Non-conformant because the font
does *NOT* use the PUA. Lawrence Schoen (who made the font) put the
Klingon letters as used for tlhIngan-Hol on the uppercase latin letters
(with some modifications to deal with the digraph and trigraph letters,
and the
On 01/15/04 10:43, Doug Ewell wrote:
I'm hoping that future ConScript assignments to the BMP PUA continue to
start at the low end and work their way up, as almost all do already,
instead of starting from the top like Klingon and Aiha. I do understand
the assignment of Klingon from U+F8D0 to
On 01/15/04 12:27, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Everson scripsit:
At 14:53 +0100 2004-01-15, Chris Jacobs wrote:
WHY THEN DISTRIBUTES THE KLI SUCH A BLATANTLY UNCONFORMANT FONT?
yIjachQo'. vItlhob.
{{{:-)
Demonstrating once again that the
On 01/16/04 07:33, Peter Kirk wrote:
Michael, you seem to have written shan rather than shin twice
independently in the subject line, so presumably this is not a typo.
Do you actually hold that the letter is called shan rather than
shin? Do you have any evidence for this? Are you basing this
I was playing around with making my very own IPA keyboard, and I
discovered to my surprise that Unicode has no Latin Small Theta (for
IPA). We have LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA (U+0251), LATIN SMALL LETTER
GAMMA (U+0263), LATIN SMALL LETTER EPSILON (U+052B, though that's its
old name), LATIN
Oh yeah, and Chi also.
~mark
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I was playing around with making my very own IPA keyboard, and I
discovered to my surprise that Unicode has no Latin Small Theta (for
IPA). We have LATIN SMALL LETTER ALPHA (U+0251), LATIN SMALL LETTER
GAMMA (U+0263), LATIN SMALL LETTER
And see http://www.arabetics.com/ for the official site. (Me, I think
it's a cool idea, but I'm notorious for being fascinated by shiny new
things.)
~mark
Mike Ayers wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 9:40 AM
In
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 16/03/2004 07:35, Carl W. Brown wrote:
...
I suspect that just changing the font to eliminate the dot will be
easier.
Software won't have to be changed, existing code pages will not have
to be
changed, searches will work, etc.
It has the disadvantage of making these
(perhaps ever so slightly closer to on-topic)...
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Why is an Anarchist asking to standardize something?
Why not!? Can you elaborate on this? Myself, I am an anarchist sympathizer,
and I have been deeply interested in a character encoding
Mike Ayers wrote:
Does anyone know of a good program for examining fonts? What
I am looking for is some way to, given a font, find out both the
glyphs contained and the code points (bad term?) at which those glyphs
are situated. Ability to read hinting/shaping tables a bonus.
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scenario: The UTC listens to you and defines some section of the PUA
as strong right-to-left by default for use in PUA-defined bidirectional
scripts. Somebody else is *already* using that section of the PUA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
XML has become the de facto standard for fancy text. It is therefore
useful to explore ways and means of bringing XML into plain text,
since obviously plain text is simpler than, and superior to, fancy text.
The current method involving and and and / and who knows
, being careful not to replace the contents of the HTML
tags. The things you have to go through...
~mark
John Cowan wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
Heh... I've occasionally caught myself almost wishing for this kind of
setup, ridiculous though it be. It would be nice to be able to get just
Jim Allan wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
I wonder if Kyekyeku is finding it rather offensive that all we
westerners are claiming to know better than he does what the cedi sign
looks like. He says it is different from a cent sign. Let's stop
speculating that he might be wrong and wait for him to
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Philippe opined:
If there's something really missing for Catalan, it's a middle-dot letter with
general category Lo, and combining class 0 (i.e. NOT combining).
The one thing for sure is that the Unicode Standard does not need
to encode more middle dots:
Raymond Mercier wrote:
I am intrigued by GB18030 encoding. There is a table of equivalences in
http://oss.software.ibm.com/cvs/icu/~checkout~/charset/data/xml/gb-18030-200
0.xml
No doubt Unihan will at some stage include these 2 4 byte values.
I enquired about the 'super font' created by a
D. Starner wrote:
If the input is in
multiple (Indic) scripts, and let's assume that the audience
(which may be a single person just asking for an sorted list
of his/her files) can read the Indic scripts used, it may be
helpful to interleave. (But I will not push this.)
Now let's asume
E. Keown wrote:
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Kenneth Whistler:
down, but even for this, the edge cases result in
irreconcilable arguments: is Etruscan left-to-right
or right-to-left or both?
A lot of the really early Greek (on the true edge
between Phoenician and Greek) seems
Peter Kirk wrote:
But have the others agreed with his judgments because they are
convinced of their correctness? Or is it more that the others have
trusted the judgments of the one they consider to be an expert, and
have either not dared to stand up to him or have simply been
unqulified to do
Peter Constable wrote:
In addition, traditional Chinese zither notation (qin pu) is also laid
out in
ideographic-like square blocks. However, as this is a notational
system rather
than a script, the constituent elements of each block represent
string, finger
and plucking
Peter Constable wrote:
Peter Constable wrote:
I was already after the first paragraph going to mention another
writing
system, and I'm even more strongly reminded of it by this second
paragraph: Sign Writing...
And there's also Visible Speech, by Alexander Melville
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dean A. Snyders asks,
Why make something we do all the time more difficult and non-standard,
when what we do now works very well?
Please, one thing to remember about default collation is that
it's default. It's only there when no other instructions exist.
Dean Snyder wrote:
This is ALL I am trying to do here - just presenting some perspectives
that may not be apparent to non-specialists, in the hopes it will make
for a better informed decision.
Good enough. But didn't we also hear from some specialists who say they
*do* need the
Dean Snyder wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote at 9:42 AM on Friday, May 7, 2004:
Dean Snyder wrote:
We need EXPLICIT reasons to justify a new encoding. Just saying
that somebody wants it in XML because their font won't show up is
insufficient justification, especially when the repercussions
Ernest Cline wrote:
I never said IPA wasn't useful, I just think it would have been better if
it had
been defined as separate script and when an IPA symbol turned into a
cased Latin letter pair, to have added two letters instead of one.
Viva Visible Speech! (We're working on the proposal...)
John Hudson wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Obviously one can find experts on both sides of this debate.
Experts that need something should not be told You can't have it
because we have other experts who don't like it.
Indeed not, but they might actually want to be told 'Other experts
have
Oh, this is ridiculous. They're the same script. It's shown they're
not. Scholars don't want it. It's shown they do. Then ask more
scholars. That way lieth madness; you can always say the *next* people
we talk to will *really* put us in our place... There's always some
further problem
Peter Constable wrote:
From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, no: some accents go on unstressed syllables. For example, a
dehi could coexist with a qamats-qatan. Psalms 4:2 has a qamats-qatan
on the same letter as GERESH MUQDAM, as do others. Psalms 9:14 has
one
Simon Montagu wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
However, since qamats-qatans only occur in unstressed syllables, such
a thing would be rare.
Actually, no: some accents go on unstressed syllables. For example,
a dehi could coexist with a qamats-qatan. Psalms 4:2 has a
qamats-qatan on the same
Dean Snyder wrote:
The issue is not whether this particular proposal represents Phoenician
script adequately, it does; the real issue is whether Phoenician should
be separately encoded at all.
I thought we had pretty much thrashed this one out by now. We've
demonstrated that users of Hebrew
Jony Rosenne wrote:
Cursive Hebrew, Rashi and Square Hebrew are only font variations and should
not be separately encoded.
Definitely. If you tried my experiment with examples from these or
other Hebrew fonts, people would have no trouble reading them. Even
Rashi script with
Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, maybe not such a good example. So let's go back to Suetterlin. I
would expect a much higher rate of recognition among German users of
normal Latin script than among American users of normal Latin script.
So a test of recognition in America might seem to indicate that
E. Keown wrote:
What Semitists do varies -- within a Ph.D. class,
where they are teaching students to recognize many
older variant glyphs, they may give many handouts with
sets of glyphs...
Within publications, which are not for specialists in
early Canaanite, they do usually use square
Playing hide and seek on the graveyards wrote:
Are those mere Italian pounds or Israeli pounds of 100 agora?
For the value of the agora see 1 Sam. 2:36
Israel stopped using Israeli pounds in 1980. (well, they started using
Sheqels then; pounds (lira) were still legal tender until 1984.)
~mark
Peter Constable wrote:
Yeah, whatever. Just make sure nobody is going to come along later and
say, We've discovered we need to distinguish two orderings for qamats
qatan and athnah (or tipha, tevir, munah, mahapakh, merkha, merkha
kefula, darga or yerah ben yomo).
(Of course, if they do, they can
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
Peter Kirk wrote:
PS Multi-language bibliographies are common in Russian books. They
are usually printed with the Latin script entries following the
Cyrillic script ones, but I have seen interleaved ones.
Check also
E. Keown wrote:
Elaine Keown
Tucson
Dear Peter,
*plain text* standard is the bidirectional
algorithm, which sorts out how a (horizontal)
*line* of text is laid out when text of opposite
directions
In the 'old' Unicode 3.0 there was a one-line note on
doing boustrophedon
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Mark wrote:
to put the various marks. The bidi algorithm is enough of a headache as
it stands, just trying to deal with RTL and LTR scripts and their
possible coexistence on a single line. Boustrophedon is far too complex
for it.
May be not.
[...example deleted...]
Dean Snyder wrote:
My question is, do you really care what ANYBODY says about encoding or
not encoding Phoenician, or has your mind been made up for 10 years and
nothing can change it now?
But they *DID* listen to what people had to say about it. Some said one
thing, some said the other. A
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:03, Michael Everson wrote:
Wedding invitations are routinely set in Blackletter and Gaelic
typefaces. I bet you 20 that if an ordinary Hebrew speaker sent out
a wedding invitation in Palaeo-Hebrew no one would turn up on the day.
And I bet you 20 that is an
Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:00 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
Out of interest, are there any dictionaries e.g. of the Phoenician
language which use both Phoenician and Hebrew script, with a plain
text distinction?
James Kass presented a non-dictionary text the other day. I considered
it
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 05:19, Michael Everson wrote:
... Germans who don't read Stterlin recognize it as what it is -- a
hard-to-read way that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
And modern Hebrews recognise paleo-Hebrew as a now hard-to-read way that
everyone used to write
D. Starner wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
But Hebrew has 27 letters. Five appear in 2 forms which are recognized
both by the users and by Unicode as distinct.
~mark
1 - 100 of 341 matches
Mail list logo
