At 02:08 PM 10/25/03 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
So, in effect the UNICODE character names attempt to be
a unified transliteration scheme for all languages? Are these
principles laid down somewhere or is this more informal?
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
WG2 had published a guideline to naming characters.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 11:09 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Peter Jacobi
Subject: Re: U+0BA3, U+0BA9
Peter Jacobi
From: Jony Rosenne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, Philippe, I had meant a separate character for a right Meteg, not
a
separate control character. Does this mean we agree?
Jony
Yes I agree, but I'm not a Unicode member and have no vote.
A separate character with the modified properties does the
Doug, Kenneth, All,
I', somewhat confused. I assume I'm lacking a lot
of background, but I can't interpolate successfully between
your answers:
Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a
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 problem with pointed
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b)
reasonably mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They
expressly do *not* represent any form of transliteration or
transcription scheme.
That doesn't mean that some of our
On Sunday, October 26, 2003 3:51 PM, 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
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see the point, but I would think there was something seriously wrong
with a database setup which could change its ordering algorithm without
somehow declaring all existing indexes invalid.
Why would such a SQL engine do so, if what has changed is an
At 02:08 PM 10/25/03 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
mnemonic. Anything beyond that is a bonus. They expressly do *not*
represent any form of transliteration or transcription scheme.
That doesn't mean that some of our conventions
On 25/10/2003 19:00, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can see that there might be some problems in the changeover phase. But
these are basically the same problems as are present anyway, and at
least putting them into a changeover phase means that they go away
On 26/10/2003 01:17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: Jony Rosenne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, Philippe, I had meant a separate character for a right Meteg, not
a
separate control character. Does this mean we agree?
Jony
Yes I agree, but I'm not a Unicode member and have no vote.
A
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
On 27/10/03 3:13 AM, Simon Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was taught at school that the double-bar form was used when Australia
switched to decimal currency in 1966, and that it was incorrect to write
the single-bar form when referring to Australian dollars. I guess the
single-bar form
This is, in my opinion, a missing character.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ted Hopp
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Merging combining classes, was: New contribution N2676
On
There is nothing unusual about this. The only problem is that while the
Hiriq is between the Lamed and the Mem and belongs to the missing Yod, some
people insist that they see two vowels under the Lamed.
Jony
-Original Message-
From: Mark E. Shoulson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
At 04:37 PM 10/26/2003, Jony Rosenne wrote:
There is nothing unusual about this. The only problem is that while the
Hiriq is between the Lamed and the Mem and belongs to the missing Yod, some
people insist that they see two vowels under the Lamed.
No, the problem is not the positioning of the
Further to my earlier reply to Simon Baker about the correct symbol for
the Australian dollar, the official position is documented at
http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/0/c7103f5100c7663fca2569de00293f3c?
OpenDocument.
Regarding the currency symbols, the specific recommendation of
At 07:45 PM 10/26/2003, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
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
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
Kevin Brown graphity at adelaide dot on dot net wrote:
On 27/10/03 3:13 AM, Simon Butcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was taught at school that the double-bar form was used when
Australia switched to decimal currency in 1966, and that it was
incorrect to write the single-bar form when
.
John Cowan wrote,
... the coins say ONE CENT, FIVE CENTS (the name nickel is
informal), ONE DIME, and QUARTER DOLLAR.
And HALF DOLLAR and ONE DOLLAR.
In 1883, the U. S. Mint changed the design on the five cent piece.
The word CENTS was omitted from the new design, and the Roman
numeral V
John Cowan cowan at mercury dot ccil dot org wrote:
I can't speak for the whole of the last two centuries, but certainly
current American bills and coins do not use either symbol. The bills
in common use say ONE DOLLAR, FIVE DOLLARS, TEN DOLLARS, and TWENTY
DOLLARS; the coins say ONE CENT,
22 matches
Mail list logo
