On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 07:46:40 +
Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 23:35:06 +0100
> Piotr Karocki via Unicode wrote:
>
> > These are only examples of changes in meaning with or ,
> > not all of these examples can really exist - but, then, another
> > question: can
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:27:37 -0700
Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
> On 11/2/2018 10:02 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> > UTR#10 still does not explicitly state that its use of "" does
> > not mean it is a valid "weight", it's a notation only
>
> No, it is explicitly a valid
On Thu, Nov 01 2018 at 6:43 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 12:52 AM, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 11:35:19 -0700
> Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately, your emails are extremely hard to read in plain text.
> It is
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> Alphabetic script users' handwriting does not match
> print in all features. Traditional German handwriting
> used a line like a macron over the letter 'u' to
> distinguish it from 'n'. Rendering this with a
> u-macron in print would be the height of absurdity.
If
Julian Bradfield wrote,
>> consists of three recognizable symbols. An "M", a superscript
>> "r", and an equal sign (= two lines). It can be printed, handwritten,
>
> That's not true. The squiggle under the r is a squiggle - it is a
> matter of interpretation (on which there was some
On 11/2/2018 4:31 AM, James Kass via
Unicode wrote:
Suppose someone found a hundred year old form from Poland which
included a section for "sign your name" and "print your name"
which had been filled out by a man with the typically Polish name
You may not like the format of the data, but you are not bound to it. If
you don't like the data format (eg you want [.0021.0002] instead of
[..0021.0002]), you can transform it however you want as long as you
get the same answer, as it says here:
http://unicode.org/reports/tr10/#Conformance
Suppose someone found a hundred year old form from Poland which included
a section for "sign your name" and "print your name" which had been
filled out by a man with the typically Polish name of Bogus McCoy? And
he was a Magister, to boot! And proud of it.
If he signed the magister
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:54:19 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> It's not just a question of "I like it or not". But the fact that the
> standard makes the presence of required in some steps, and the
> requirement is in fact wrong: this is in fact NEVER required to
> create an
On 01/11/2018 16:43, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
I don't think it's a joke to recognize that there is a continuum here and that
there is no line that can be drawn which is based on straightforward
principles.
[…]
In this case, there is no such framework that could help
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 01:44:25PM +, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote:
> I write my 7’s and Z’s with a horizontal line through them. Ƶ is encoded
> not for this purpose, but because Z and Ƶ are distinct in orthographies
> for varieties of Tatar, Chechen, Karelian, and Mongolian. This is a
The table is the way it is because it is easier to process (and comprehend)
when the first field is always the primary weight, second is always the
secondary, etc.
Go ahead and transform the input DUCET files as you see fit. The "should be
removed" is your personal preference. Unless we hear
Michael Everson wrote:
> I write my 7’s and Z’s with a horizontal line through them. Ƶ is
> encoded not for this purpose, but because Z and Ƶ are distinct in
> orthographies for varieties of Tatar, Chechen, Karelian, and
> Mongolian. This is a contemporary writing convention but it does not
>
On Fri, Nov 02 2018 at 5:09 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
[...]
> To transcribe the postcard would mean selecting the characters
> appropriate for the printed equivalent of the text.
You seem to make implicit assumptions which are not necessarily
true. For me to transcribe the
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 08:38:45 -0700
Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote:
> Do we have any other evidence of this usage, besides a single
> handwritten postcard?
What, beyond some of us actually employing it ourselves? I'm sure I've
seen 'William' abbreviated in print to 'Wᵐ' with some mark below, but
Le ven. 2 nov. 2018 à 16:20, Marcel Schneider via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> a écrit :
> That seems to me a regression, after the front has moved in favor of
> recognizing Latin script needs preformatted superscript. The use case is
> clear, as we have ª, º, and n° with degree sign, and so on
I was replying not about the notational repreentation of the DUCET data
table (using [....] unnecessarily) but about the text of UTR#10 itself.
Which remains highly confusive, and contains completely unnecesary steps,
and just complicates things with absoiluytely no benefit at all by
Do we have any other evidence of this usage, besides a single
handwritten postcard?
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
On 31/10/2018 at 19:34, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote:
On 10/31/2018 10:32 AM, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
>
> Let me remind what plain text is according to the Unicode glossary:
>
> Computer-encoded text that consists only of a sequence of code
> points from a given standard,
On 2018-11-02, James Kass via Unicode wrote:
> Alphabetic script users write things the way they are spelled and spell
> things the way they are written. The abbreviation in question as
> written consists of three recognizable symbols. An "M", a superscript
> "r", and an equal sign (= two
On 11/2/2018 10:02 AM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
I was replying not about the notational repreentation of the DUCET
data table (using [....] unnecessarily) but about the text of
UTR#10 itself. Which remains highly confusive, and contains completely
unnecesary steps, and just
On 02/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[quoted mail]
Using variation selectors is only appropriate for these existing
(preencoded) superscript letters ª and º so that they display the
appropriate (underlined or not underlined) glyph.
And it is for forcing the display of
22 matches
Mail list logo
