On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 00:33:47 +
Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote:
> I agree and understand that accurate representation is important in
> this case. It would be good to understand how widespread the issue is
> in order to begin to justify the work to retrofit shaping with
> normalization. The num
On 8/8/2019 1:06 AM, Richard Wordingham
via Unicode wrote:
This is not compliant with Unicode, but
neither is deliberately treating canonically equivalent forms
differently.
That.
A./
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:19:26 -0700
Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> What about text that must exist normalized for other purposes?
>
> Domain names must be normalized to NFC, for example. Will such
> strings display correctly if passed to USE?
One solution, of course, is to minimise the use of
Subject: Re: What is the time frame for USE
shapers to provide support for CV+C ?
On 8/7/2019 5:08 PM, Andrew Glass wrote:
Shaping domain names is a new requirement. It
would be good to unde
this case might
be quite large.
Cheers,
Andrew
From: Asmus Freytag (c)
Sent: 07 August 2019 17:17
To: Andrew Glass ; Unicode Mailing List
Subject: Re: What is the time frame for USE shapers to provide support for CV+C
?
On 8/7/2019 5:08 PM, Andrew Glass wrote:
Shaping domain names is a new
icode
*Sent:* 07 August 2019 14:19
*To:* unicode@unicode.org
*Subject:* Re: What is the time frame for USE shapers to provide
support for CV+C ?
What about text that must exist normalized for other purposes?
Domain names must be normalized to NFC, for example. Will such strings
display correct
de.org>
Cc: Andrew Glass <mailto:andrew.gl...@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: What is the time frame for USE shapers to provide support for CV+C
?
On Tue, 14 May 2019 03:08:04 +0100
Richard Wordingham via Unicode
<mailto:unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 00:58:
ubject: Re: What is the time frame for USE shapers to provide support for CV+C ?
On Tue, 14 May 2019 03:08:04 +0100
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2019 00:58:07 +
Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote:
Here is the essence of the initial changes
hat is the time frame for USE shapers to provide support for CV+C
?
On Tue, 14 May 2019 03:08:04 +0100
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 00:58:07 +
> Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Here is the essence of the initial changes needed to support C
On Tue, 14 May 2019 03:08:04 +0100
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2019 00:58:07 +
> Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Here is the essence of the initial changes needed to support CV+C.
> > Open to feedback.
> >
> >
> > * Create new SAKOT class
> > SAKOT (Sk
> (1) When can we anticipate that the USE spec will be updated to provide
> support for subjoined consonants below vowels (as required for TAI THAM) ?
• The exact scope is actually about allowing conjoined consonant forms (either
encoded with a stacker, or encoded atomically?) after vowel signs
On Tue, 14 May 2019 03:08:04 +0100
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> Together,
> these call for (Sk B)* to be replaced by ().
Correction:
Together, these call for (Sk B)* to be replaced by ()*.
Richard.
On Tue, 14 May 2019 00:58:07 +
Andrew Glass via Unicode wrote:
> Here is the essence of the initial changes needed to support CV+C.
> Open to feedback.
>
>
> * Create new SAKOT class
> SAKOT (Sk) based on UISC = Invisible_Stacker
> * Reduced HALANT class
> Now only HALANT (H) based
ad Esfahbod
Sent: 10 May 2019 11:32
To: Ed Trager
Cc: Andrew Glass ; Unicode Mailing List
Subject: Re: What is the time frame for USE shapers to provide support for CV+C
?
I'm open to doing that if there's consensus on how it should be done.
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 8:55 AM Ed Trager
mail
On Thu, 9 May 2019 11:55:23 -0400
Ed Trager via Unicode wrote:
> ** A good use case is the Tai Tham word U+1A27 U+1A6A U+1A60 U+1A37 ,
> transcribed to Central Thai script as จูบ, (*to kiss*). Currently,
> people are writing this as U+1A27 U+1A60 U+1A37 U+1A6A ("จบู") which
> violates the "phone
Hi, Andrew and Behdad,
Prompted by a conversation I had with Liang Hai yesterday, I am just
curious to get some idea about the following:
(1) When can we anticipate that the USE spec will be updated to provide
support for subjoined consonants below vowels (as required for TAI THAM) ?
(2) Once th
16 matches
Mail list logo
