Re: Superscript and Subscript Characters in General Use / Re: French Superscript Abbreviations Fit Plain Text Requirements

2017-04-14 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:30:17 +0100 (CET), I wrote: > […] I now believe and will > spread the word that […] on the other > hand, the recommendations in TUS may be considered a mere official discourse > for > encoding process management purposes, but with little through no real impact > on >

Re: Public review of draft repertoire for ISO/IEC 10646

2017-04-15 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 06:14:45 +0200 (CEST), I wrote(1): > I note that now that the Unicode repertoire is built at cruise speed, > few to no feedback items are reported.[1][2] > [1] http://www.unicode.org/review/pri327/feedback.html > [2] http://www.unicode.org/review/pri328/feedback.html It

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

2017-07-14 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 16:14:04 +0100 (BST), William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: > […] > > For example, it mentioned the u diaeresis used in French, though I learned > later that words that have a u diaeresis in French are rather rare. > Today, words containing 'u diaeresis' have become

Re: Unicode education in UK Schools

2017-07-15 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
y: "Tronoën", "Citroën". Since Iʼve been kindly informed off-list that this point of the reform actually “regularizes” (as you put it) a mistake, Iʼll have to make use of the optionality of applying the new rules, and reset the words in my files to the old spelling. As y

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:54:19 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote: > > > On Jan 30, 2018, at 3:20 AM, Alastair Houghton wrote: > > > > The “alt” annotation isn’t on the latest keyboards (go look in an Apple > > Store if you don’t believe me :-)). > > Interesting! Apple’s documentation shows these keys

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:34:40 -0700, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > That tends to prove that Mac users accept changes, while Windows users > > refuse changes. > > I was going to say that was a gross over-generalization, but that didn't > adequately express how

RE: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:50:49 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > > http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2013/09/us-moby-latin-keyboard-for-windows.html > > > > > > Sadly the downloads are still unavailable (as formerly discussed). But > > I saved in time, too (June

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:20:46 +, Alastair Houghton wrote: > > On 30 Jan 2018, at 05:31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote: > >> […] > >> > >> They are also all on the Mac

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:18:49 +0100, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > I have always wondered why Microsoft did not push itself at least the five > simple additions needed since long in French for the French AZERTY LAYOUT: Many people in Fɽanƈë are wondering, but it is primarily a matter of honoring a

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

2018-01-30 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 30 Jan 2018 23:30:59 +, David Starner via Unicode wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:23 AM Alastair Houghton via Unicode wrote: > > > This pattern exists across the board at the two companies; the Windows API > > hasn’t changed all that much > > since Windows NT 4/95, whereas

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

2018-01-28 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 14:11:06 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > We can only hope that now, CLDR is thoroughly re-engineering the way > > international or otherwise extended keyboards are mapped. > > I suspect you already know this and just misspoke, but CLDR doesn't >

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-28 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:20:16 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Mark Davis wrote: > > > One addition: with the expansion of keyboards in > > http://blog.unicode.org/2018/01/unicode-ldml-keyboard-enhancements.html > > we are looking to expand the repository to not merely represent those, > > but to

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-01-27 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 21:52:46 +, Richard Wordingham wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 03:22:37 +0800 > Phake Nick via Unicode wrote: > > > >I found the Windows 'US International' keyboard layout highly > > >intuitive for accented Latin-1 characters. > > How common is the US International

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-29 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
BTW the 5 dead keys of Windows US Intl are already on Appleʼs *normal* US layout, along with the letter o-with-e. US Extended adds 20 more deadkeys. On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 16:20:16 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: […] > Nothing in the PRI #367 blog post or background document communicated to > me that

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

2018-01-29 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 21:56:25 -0800, Mark Davis replied to Doug Ewell: > > It is not a goal to get "vendors to retire these keyboard layouts and > replace them" — that's not our role. (And I'm sure that a lot of people > like and would continue to use the Windows Intl keyboard.) Instead of

Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?

2018-01-27 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sun, 28 Jan 2018 05:02:47 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:54:57 +0100 (CET) > Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > The US-Intl is so weird “you canʼt just leave it on all the time” as > > reported in: > > > &

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

2018-01-31 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Wed, 31 Jan 2018 19:05:17 +0100, Philippe Verdy wrote: > > Another idea: you can already have multiple layouts loaded for the same > language : For French, nothing prohibits to have a "technical/programmer > layout", favoring input of ASCII, a "bibliographic/typographical" one with > improved

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

2018-01-29 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
OnMon, 29 Jan 2018 11:13:21 -0700, Tom Gewecke wrote: > > > On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > > > the Windows US-Intl > > does not allow to write French in a usable manner, as the Œœ is still > > missing, and

RE: Keyboard layouts and CLDR (was: Re: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

2018-01-29 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 29 Jan 2018 16:07:11 -0700, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > Prior to this thread, I believed that the ratio of Windows users > > liking the US-International vs Mac users liking the US-Extended was > > like other “Windows implementation” vs “Apple implementation”

Cross-Locale Keyboard Features for the General Public

2018-02-09 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
Approx. 400 or more subscribers of Unicode Public happen not to be subscribed to CLDR-Users. Now there is a thread that might be of some interest also to non-CLDR‑users. Itʼs about some main functionalities of keyboards intended for many locales, not about specific details of a particular

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-17 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On 17/02/18 13:43, Christoph Päper via Unicode wrote: […] > Stuff like typography or emoji can improve the effectiveness and efficiency > of textual communication a lot. (And if used badly or maliciously they can > deter it as well.) > Since poor typography can deteriorate our communication as

Re: Unicode of Death 2.0

2018-02-17 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On 17/02/18 21:01, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: […] > > I've linked Manish's post on FB as a reply to one of those mainstream > articles that repeatedly calls the conjunct a "single character," > written by a staffer who couldn't be bothered to find out how a writing > system used by 78

Re: Why so much emoji nonsense?

2018-02-18 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 20:06:42 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: […] > Unicode also avoids text that is 'wrong' but still comprehensible. > Unicode should then legalize the use of preformatted superscripts in Latin script. This convention appears to root back in medieval Latin, for

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

2018-03-07 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:   > There's been significant efforts to "translate" or more precisely "adapt" > significant parts of the standard with good presentations in Wikipedia and > various sites for scoped topics. So there are alternate charts, and

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

2018-03-08 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: […] > * the core text of the standard (section 3 about conformance and requirements > is the first thing to adapt). > There's absolutely no need however to do that as a pure translation, it can > be rewritten and presented >

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

2018-03-08 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:03:28 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a > > translation, be it only the Nameslist. > > For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An > alternative would be paragraph

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-11 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On 11/03/18 21:05, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:35:11PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > I fail to understand why increasing complexity decreases the need to be > > widely understood. > > I’m pretty sure that everybody will agre

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-11 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:41:35 -0800, Ken Whistler wrote: > > > On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts > > crash even > > before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-12 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 08:41:35 -0800, Ken Whistler wrote: > > > On 3/9/2018 6:58 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > As of translating the Core spec as a whole, why did two recent attempts > > crash even > > before the maintenance stage, while the 3.1 project

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-12 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 07:39:53 +, Alastair Houghton wrote: > > On 11 Mar 2018, at 21:14, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English > > may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-12 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 10:00:16 +, Andrew West wrote: > > On 12 March 2018 at 07:59, Marcel Schneider via Unicode > wrote: > > > > Likewise ISO/IEC 10646 is available in a French version > > No it is not, and never has been. > > Why don't you check yo

RE: Translating the standard

2018-03-13 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: > > Time to correct some facts. > The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate > effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper. > National bodies are always welcome to try to transpose and

Re: Translating the standard

2018-03-13 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN for European Norm. A./ 2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode : On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +, Michel Suignard wrote: Time

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

2018-03-08 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 04:25:53 -0500, Elsebeth Flarup via Unicode wrote: > > For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea. > […] > > There are other reasons to not do this. I assume that the reasons you are thinking of, are congruent with those that Ken already

Re: Translating the standard (was: Re: Fonts and font sizes used in the Unicode)

2018-03-09 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On 08/03/18 19:33, Arthur Reutenauer <arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 07:05:06PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > https://www.amazon.fr/Unicode-5-0-pratique-Patrick-Andries/dp/2100511408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8=books=12069898

Re: Accessibility Emoji

2018-03-29 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
William,   On 29/03/18 17:03 William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: >  > I have been thinking about issues around the proposal. > http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18080-accessibility-emoji.pdf > There is a sentence in that document that starts as follows. >  > > Emoji are a universal language

More scripts, not more emoji (Re: Accessibility Emoji)

2018-04-14 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
We need to get more scripts into Unicode, not more emoji. That is — somewhat inflated — the core message of a NYT article published six months ago, and never shared here (no more than so many articles about Unicode, scripts, and emoji). Some 100 scripts are missing in the Standard, affecting

Re: More scripts, not more emoji (Re: Accessibility Emoji)

2018-04-15 Thread Marcel Schneider via Unicode
On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 20:29:40 -0700, Markus Scherer <markus@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > We need to get more scripts into Unicode, not more emoji. > > > > That is — somewhat inflated