On 2011-11-23 10:38, Jeremie Hornus wrote:
I was thinking the ID being the code point value itself, and the name
a human readable description of it.
They are both IDs. One is from the range of numbers from 0 to 1114111
(10 base 16), the other is from the range of strings of characters
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 to no glyph.
These are names in the sense
On 23 Nov 2011, at 02:25, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus Freytag replied to Jeremie Hornus:
Wouldn't be Unicode Character Glyph Description more accurate than
Unicode Character Name ?
And just Unicode Character Description for those pointing to no
glyph.
These are names in the sense of an ID.
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 to
Hi!
In one of the discussions in this community, it was stated that once
assigned, the name of a character cannot be changed. But I have noticed
some characters have their name changed eg 'ARABIC LETTER YEH BARREE'
(U+06D2) was previously named 'ARABIC LETTER YA BARREE'. Could anyone
please
2011-11-22 21:02, a...@peoplestring.com wrote:
In one of the discussions in this community, it was stated that once
assigned, the name of a character cannot be changed. But I have noticed
some characters have their name changed eg 'ARABIC LETTER YEH BARREE'
(U+06D2) was previously named 'ARABIC
Anbu anbu at peoplestring dot com wrote:
In one of the discussions in this community, it was stated that once
assigned, the name of a character cannot be changed. But I have
noticed some characters have their name changed eg 'ARABIC LETTER YEH
BARREE' (U+06D2) was previously named 'ARABIC
'ARABIC LETTER YA BARREE'. Could anyone
please clarify me on this?
Sure. The name change you are talking about occurred between Unicode 1.0
and Unicode 1.1 (in 1993, 18 years ago). There were *lots* of name changes
between 1.0 and 1.1 -- that was the result of the merger of the Unicode 1.0
contents
Wouldn't be Unicode Character Glyph Description more accurate than Unicode
Character Name ?
And just Unicode Character Description for those pointing to no glyph.
J.
On 22 Nov 2011, at 20:35, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/22/2011 11:02 AM, a...@peoplestring.com wrote:
Hi!
In one of the
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 to no glyph.
These are names in the sense of an ID. That they are created by
deriving them from
On 11/22/2011 04:22 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 to no glyph.
Unicode doesn't encode glyphs, it encodes characters.
~mark
Asmus Freytag replied to Jeremie Hornus:
Wouldn't be Unicode Character Glyph Description more accurate than
Unicode Character Name ?
And just Unicode Character Description for those pointing to no
glyph.
These are names in the sense of an ID. That they are created by
deriving them from a
12 matches
Mail list logo