Doug,
> > However, 16 bit characters were a hard enough sell in the good old
> > days. If we had started out withug 2bit characters we would still be
> > dreaming about Unicode.
>
> I think Carl meant "with 32-bit characters." I don't know what kind of
> word "withug" is (Old English?), but I li
This is not a proposal to change standards in any respect. It's just a
thought-out (well, somewhat) approach for people who have to represent
character codes as opposed to characters, and have 32 bits to play with.
The intent is to represent all the codes of all the registered character
sets, pre
Michael Yau wrote:
Markus,
>The standard does _not_ require to _process_ internally in GB18030. It
is sufficient to have a converter and to process in Unicode, which does
contain all of >the characters.
Just curious, do you have this in writing from the China standards body?
I don't personal
Jane, you are right, I over-simplified. I tried to make the point that you need not _process_ text
in GB18030 but that Unicode processing and conversion to/from GB18030 fulfills the requirement to be
able to read and write GB18030 text.
Yes, you need to have font support for all the characters t
My experience is that the UCS-2 to UTF-16 conversion can be much easier than the SBCS
to DBCS conversion, depending on how your original code is organized.
In the case of Windows, much of the text processing was already done by modules (e.g.
Uniscribe, NLS) that processed text elements rather th
One of the Unicode design principles is unification: "unify across
languages, but not across scripts". As a result, the "A" used in all
Latin-based writing systems is the same character, but that character is
different from the "A" used in Cyrillic- or Greek-based writing systems.
There are a very
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 11:38:48AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> This is not a proposal to change standards in any respect. It's just a
> thought-out (well, somewhat) approach for people who have to represent
> character codes as opposed to characters, and have 32 bits to play with.
Have you looked
David Starner scripsit:
> Have you looked at the way Emacs 21 handles this? It's got something
> similar going on.
I confess I remain in blissful ignorance of Emacs and all its works. Do
you have a pointer to this particular part of it?
--
Her he asked if O'Hare Doctor tidings sent from far
There are multiple registry keys that can cause usp10.dll to load. So usp10.dll may be
loading even though you've deleted the LanguagePack key (not recommended, btw). Also,
an application can load usp10.dll, independently of what the OS does. I suspect that's
what you are seeing on Win98.
There
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
> completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
> single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
> but not across scripts -- to imply that we ne
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 01:11:39PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> David Starner scripsit:
>
> > Have you looked at the way Emacs 21 handles this? It's got something
> > similar going on.
>
> I confess I remain in blissful ignorance of Emacs and all its works. Do
> you have a pointer to this particul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote at 11:17 AM on Friday, November 15, 2002:
>So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
>completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
>single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
>but not acr
Peter Constable posted on Wakhi:
So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
but not across scripts -- to imply that we need
> So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
> completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use a
> single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across languages
> but not across scripts -- to imply that we need to encode new characters,
Dean Snyder scripsit:
> Group A writes the logically ordered graphemic sequence *acme* as "acme";
> group B as "emca".
This fact requires separate encoding, because bidi-ness is a noncontextual
property of a Unicode character.
> Group A pronounces the graphemic sequence "acme" as /acme/; group B
On 11/15/2002 02:59:11 PM Jim Allan wrote:
>Yet I note the schwa used in the sample does not match the other vowel
>letters in style or width, apparently here borrowed from a different font.
Definitely an ecclectic font (and, unfortunately, illegal -- I won't
mention the face name or the owners,
On 11/15/2002 12:22:15 PM John Cowan wrote:
>> So, the question is this: Should we say that this writing system is
>> completely Latin (keeping the norm that orthographic writing systems use
a
>> single script) and apply the principle of unification -- across
languages
>> but not across scripts -
17 matches
Mail list logo
