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

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

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

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

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: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:56:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > On 6/9/2018 12:01 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > Still a computer should be understandable off-line, so CLDR providing a > > standard library of error messages could be > > app

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:56:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: […] > It's pushing this kind of impractical scheme that gives standardizers a bad > name. > > Especially if it is immediately tied to governmental procurement, forcing > people to adopt it (or live with it) > whether it

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

s know. Best regards, Marcel > Regards, > Steven > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 3:41 PM Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 12:56:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2018 12:01 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > &

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 09:47:01 +0100, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 08:23:33 +0200 (CEST) > Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > Where there is opportunity for productive sync and merging with is > > > glibc. We have had so

RE: The Unicode Standard and ISO

018 7:49 PM > To: Marcel Schneider > Cc: UnicodeMailingList > Subject: Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO     2018-06-09 17:22 GMT+02:00 Marcel Schneider via Unicode : On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 09:47:01 +0100, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote: > > > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2018 0

RE: The Unicode Standard and ISO

> > From the outset, Unicode and the US national body tried repeatedly to > > engage with SC35 and SC35/WG5, […] > As a reminder: The actual SC35 is in total disconnect from the same SC35 as > it was from the mid-eighties to mid-nineties and beyond. Edit: ISO/IEC JTC1 SC35 was founded in 1999.

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:32:45 +0100 (BST), William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote: […] > Asmus Freytag wrote: > > > If you tried to standardize all error messages even in one language you > > would never arrive at something that would be universally useful. > > Well that is a big "If". One

RE: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Sun, 10 Jun 2018 15:11:48 +, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: > > > ... For another part it [sync with ISO/IEC 15897] failed because the > > Consortium refused to cooperate, despite of > > repeated proposals for a merger of both instances. > > First, ISO/IEC 15897 is built on a

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 15:58:09 +0100, Michael Everson via Unicode wrote: > > Marcel, > > You have put words into my mouth. Please don’t. Your description of what I > said is NOT accurate. > > > On 12 Jun 2018, at 03:53, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > &

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Thu, 17 May 2018 09:43:28 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > On 5/17/2018 8:08 AM, Martinho Fernandes via Unicode wrote: > > Hello, > > > > There are several mentions of synchronization with related standards in > > unicode.org, e.g. in https://www.unicode.org/versions/index.html, and

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:50:28 -0400, Tom Gewecke via Unicode wrote: > > > > On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > What bothered me ... is that the registration of the French locale in CLDR > > is > > still surprising

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

nt the low, low fee of $10K, I might "ignore" the > email, or "not respond" to it. > Or I might "decline" it with a no-thanks or not-interested response. But none > of that is to "refuse" it.  Thanks, I got it (the point, and the e‐mail). More ser

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 15:20:29 +0200, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: > > A few facts.  > > > ... Consortium refused till now to synchronize UCA and ISO/IEC 14651. > > ISO/IEC 14651 and Unicode have longstanding cooperation. Ken Whistler could > speak to the > synchronization level in more detail,

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Thu, 17 May 2018 22:26:15 +, Peter Constable via Unicode wrote: […] > Hence, from an ISO perspective, ISO 10646 is the only standard for which > on-going > synchronization with Unicode is needed or relevant. This point of view is fueled by the Unicode Standard being traditionally

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:54:20 -0400, Tom Gewecke via Unicode wrote: > > > On Jun 8, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > People relevant to projects for French locale do trace the borderline of > > applicability wider > > than do t

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:33:20 -0700, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > […] > There's no value added in creating "mirrors" of something that is > successfully being developed and maintained under a different umbrella. Wouldn’t the same be true for ISO/IEC 10646? It has no value added neither, and

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 19:49:10 +0200, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote: […] > People interested in this topic should > (a) start up their own project somewhere else, > (b) take discussion of it off this list, > (c) never bring it up again on this list. Thank you for letting us know. I apologize for

Please disregard my mistaken e-mail

My last e-mail with subject “re: Your message to Unicode awaits moderator approval” was mistakenly sent to the Mailing List, for forgetting remove address in cc-field (end hidden). Please disregard. My apologies. Marcel

re: Your message to Unicode awaits moderator approval

> Message du 13/06/18 22:25 > De : "via Unicode" > A : charupd...@orange.fr > Copie à : > Objet : Your message to Unicode awaits moderator approval > > Your mail to 'Unicode' with the subject > > Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

William, On 12/06/18 12:26, William_J_G Overington wrote: > > Hi Marcel > > > I don’t fully disagree with Asmus, as I suggested to make available > > localizable (and effectively localized) libraries of message components, > > rather than of entire messages. > > Could you possibly give

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:20:09 -0700, Steven R. Loomis via Unicode wrote: […] > But, it sounds like the CLDR process was successful in this case. Thank you >for contributing.   You are welcome, but thanks are due to the actual corporate contributors. […] > Actually, I think the particular data item

RE: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Thu, 7 Jun 2018 22:46:12 +0300, Erkki I. Kolehmainen via Unicode wrote: > > I cannot but fully agree with Mark and Michael. > > Sincerely > Thank you for confirming. All witnesses concur to invalidate the statement about uniqueness of ISO/IEC 10646 ‐ Unicode synchrony. — After being

Re: The Unicode Standard and ISO

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 00:43:04 +0200, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: [cited mail] > > The "normative names" are in fact normative only as a forward reference > to the ISO/IEC repertoire becaus it insists that these names are essential > part > of the stable encoding policy which was then

Unicode 11.0.0: BidiMirroring.txt

In the wake of the new release, may we discuss the reason why UTC persisted in recommending that 3 pairs of mathematical symbols featuring tildes are mirrored in low-end support by glyph-exchange bidi-mirroring, with the result that legibility of tildes is challenged, as demonstrated for

Re: Keyboard layouts and CLDR

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

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

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

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

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?)

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?)

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

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?

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

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?)

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?

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

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?)

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?)

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

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?

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

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?

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: Diacritic marks in parentheses

Indeed when target use is general, dialectological diacritics are visibly not an option, as despite being in Unicode since v7.0 (2014), they are still unsupported by mainstream. Writing “der Arzt oder die Ärztin” or, depending on context, “einen Arzt oder eine Ärztin”, which I remember being

Re: Diacritic marks in parentheses

We do have this already, in combining marks extended:   @@ 1AB0 Combining Diacritical Marks Extended 1AFF @ Used for German dialectology […] 1ABB COMBINING PARENTHESES ABOVE * intended to surround a diacritic above 1ABC COMBINING DOUBLE PARENTHESES ABOVE 1ABD COMBINING PARENTHESES BELOW * intended

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (is: UCD in YAML)

Thank you Marius for the example. Indeed I now see that YAML is a powerful means for a file to have an intuitive readability while drastically reducing file size. BTW what I conjectured about the role of line breaks is true for CSV too, and any file downloaded from UCD on a semicolon separator

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (is: Parsing UCD in XML)

On 31/08/18 10:47 Manuel Strehl via Unicode wrote: > > To handle the UCD XML file a streaming parser like Expat is necessary. Thanks for the tip. However for my needs, Expat looks like overkill, and I’m looking out for a much simpler standalone tool, just converting XML to CSV. > > For

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV?

On 31/08/18 19:59 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: […] > Second, one of the main obligations of a standards organization is > *stability*. People may well object to the ad hoc nature of the UCD data > files that have been added over the years -- but it is a *stable* > ad-hockery. The worst thing

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (was: Re: Unicode Digest, Vol 56, Issue 20)

ML as I do use XML for lookup in the text editor, but I’m afraid that there is no advantage over CSV with respect to file size. Regards, Marcel > > Regards, > > Marius Spix > > > On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 06:58:37 +0200 (CEST) Marcel Schneider via Unicode > wrote: > […]

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (is: UCD data consumption)

I’m not responding without thinking, as I was blamed of when I did, but it is painful for me to dig into what Ken explained about how we should be consuming UCD data. I’ll now try to get some more clarity into the topic. > On 31/08/18 19:59 Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote: > […] > > > > Third,

Re: CLDR [terminating]

Sorry for not noticing that this thread belongs to CLDR-users, not to Unicode Public. Hence I’m taking it off this list, welcoming participants to follow up there: https://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/2018-September/000833.html

Re: Shortcuts question

On 07/09/18 02:32 Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote: > > Hello. This may be slightly OT for this list but I'm asking it here as it > concerns computer usage with multiple scripts and i18n: It actually belongs on CLDR-users list. But coming from you, it shall remain here while I’m posting a

Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (is: UCD in YAML)

On 06/09/18 19:09 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > > Marcel Schneider wrote: > > > BTW what I conjectured about the role of line breaks is true for CSV > > too, and any file downloaded from UCD on a semicolon separator basis > > becomes unusable when displayed straight in the built-in text editor

Re: Unicode Digest, Vol 56, Issue 20

Thank you for looking into this. First, I’m unable to retrieve the publication you are citing, but a February thread had nearly the same subject, referring to Vol. 50. How did you compute these figures? Is that a code phrase to say: “The same questions over and over again; let’s settle this

UCD in XML or in CSV? (was: Re: Unicode Digest, Vol 56, Issue 20)

for changes to existing UCD file formats is kind of a non-starter, given these two alternatives. > > > -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org > Original message Message: 3 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2018 02:27:33 +0200 (CEST) > From: Marcel Schneider vi

Re: Private Use areas

On 29/08/18 07:55, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 28 2018 at 9:43 -0700, unicode@unicode.org writes: > > On August 23, 2011, Asmus Freytag wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/2011 7:22 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > >>> Of all applications, a word processor or DTP application would want > >>> to

Re: CLDR (was: Private Use areas)

On 31/08/18 07:27 Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: […] > > Given NamesList.txt / Code Charts comments are kept minimal by design, > > one couldn’t simply pop them into XML or whatever, as the result would be > > disappointing and call for completion in the aftermath. Yet another task > >

EOL conventions (was: Re: UCD in XML or in CSV? (is: UCD in YAML))

On 07/09/18 22:07 Eli Zaretskii via Unicode wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:47:44 -0700 > > Cc: d3c...@gmail.com, Doug Ewell , > > unicode > > From: Rebecca Bettencourt via Unicode > > > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 11:20 AM Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: > > > > That version has been

Re: Shortcuts question (is: Thread transfer info)

Hello, I’ve followed up on CLDR-users: https://unicode.org/pipermail/cldr-users/2018-September/000837.html As a sidenote — It might be hard to get a selection of discussions actually happen on CLDR-users instead of Unicode Public mail list, as long as subscribers of this list don’t

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

, 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Re: Accessibility Emoji

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

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 29/10/18 20:29, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: […] > ObMagister: I agree that trying to reflect every decorative nuance of > handwriting is not what plain text is all about. Agreed. > (I also disagree with > those who insist that superscripted abbreviations are required for > correct spelling

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

Thank you for your feedback.   On 30/10/2018 at 22:52, Khaled Hosny wrote:   > > First, ARABIC LETTER SUPERSCRIPT ALEPH U+0671. > > But it is a vowel sign. Many letters put above are called superscript  > > when explaining in English. >  > As you say, this is a vowel sign not a superscript letter,

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister" (was: Re: second attempt)

On 31/10/2018 at 11:21, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > On 10/31/2018 2:38 AM, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: > > > You could use the various hacks > > you've discussed, with modifier letters; but that is not "encoding", > > that is "abusing Unicode to do markup". At least, that's the

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 31/10/2018 at 17:27, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: > > On 2018-10-31, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > Preformatted Unicode superscript small letters are meeting the French > > superscript > > requirement, that is found in: > > http://www.a

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 31/10/2018 at 17:03, Khaled Hosny wrote: > > A while I was localizing some application to Arabic and the developer > “helpfully” used m² for square meter, but that does not work for Arabic > because there is no superscript ٢ in Unicode, so I had to contact the > developer and ask for markup to

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: > > On 10/31/2018 11:10 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > > > > which, if my understanding of "convient" is correct, carefully does > > > [not] quite say that it is *wrong* not to superscrip

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 31/10/18 at 23:05, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: […] > > Sad that Arabic ² and ³ are still missing. > > How about all the other sets of native digits? The missing ones are hopefully already on the roadmap. Or do you refer to the missing ² and ³ in all other native digits? Obviously they

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 01/11/2018 at 00:41, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > > On 2018/11/01 03:10, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > On 31/10/2018 at 17:27, Julian Bradfield via Unicode wrote: > > >> When one does question the Académie about the fact, this is their > >> reply: > &

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

Rather than a dozen individual e-mails, I’m sending this omnibus reply for the record, because even if here and in CLDR (SurveyTool forum and Trac) everything has already been discussed and fixed, there is still a need to stay acknowledging, so as not to fail following up, with respect to the

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 30/10/2018  at 21:34, Khaled Hosny via Unicode wrote: >  > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 04:52:47PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > E.g. in Arabic script, superscript is considered worth  > > encoding and using without any caveat, whereas when Latin script is on,

Encoding (was: Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister")

On 03/11/2018 23:50, James Kass via Unicode wrote: When the topic being discussed no longer matches the thread title, somebody should start a new thread with an appropriate thread title. Yes, that is what also the OP called for, but my last reply though taking me some time to write was sent

Re: Encoding

On 04/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy wrote: Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the but two possible variants (that would be equally valid withou preference). Use it after any base cluster (including with diacritics if needed, like combining underlines). - the first one can

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

On 01/11/2018 01:21, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: On 10/31/2018 3:37 PM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: On 31/10/2018 19:42, Asmus Freytag via Unicode wrote: […] It is a fallacy that all text output on a computer should match the convention of "fine typography". Much that

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

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

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

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,

Preformatted superscript in ordinary text, paleography and phonetics using Latin script (was: Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister" - third question summary)

On 06/11/2018 12:04, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote: Hi! On the over 100 years old postcard https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6 you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in Polish) as

Re: Encoding (was: Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister")

On 05/11/2018 17:46, Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: Philippe Verdy wrote: Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the but two possible variants (that would be equally valid withou preference). Actually you're not proposing them. You're talking about them (at length) on

Re: Encoding

On 04/11/2018 20:19, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote: […] Even the mere fallback to render the as a dotted circle (total absence of support) will not block completely reading the abbreviation: * you'll see "2e◌" (which is still better than only "2e", with minimal impact) instead of * "2◌"

Re: Encoding (was: Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister")

Sorry, I didn’t truncate the subject line, it was my mail client. On 04/11/2018 17:45, Philippe Verdy wrote: Note that I actually propose not just one rendering for the but two possible variants (that would be equally valid withou preference). Use it after any base cluster (including with

Re: A sign/abbreviation for "magister"

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

Re: CLDR

ntime I rediscovered Locale Explorer > > http://demo.icu-project.org/icu-bin/locexp > > which I used some time ago. Nice. Actually based on CLDR v31.0.1. > > On Fri, Aug 31 2018 at 12:17 +0200, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > On 31/08/18 07:27 Janusz S. Bień

Re: wws dot org

On 15/01/2019 19:22, Johannes Bergerhausen via Unicode wrote: Dear list, I am happy to report that www.worldswritingsystems.org  is now online. The web site is a joint venture by — Institut Designlabor Gutenberg (IDG), Mainz, Germany, — Atelier National

  1   2   >