RE: PETSCII mapping?

From: Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Rebecca T Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 2:26 PM > As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and flimsier > argument against inclusion — why isn’t there a larger community of PETSCII > enthusaists? Partially

Re: PETSCII mapping?

> At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will > get very detailed very quickly. > I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together? > Everybody interested, raise your hand Yes please. William

Re: PETSCII mapping?

This 2x3 block graphic set was also part of Videotex/Teletext/Antiope standards in Europe (used on PCs, dedicated terminals, and TV programs, and still supported in more recent teletext technologies, even if many smart TVs offer other interactive protocols based on web standards, or possibly

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 04/06/2017 08:07 AM, Rebecca T wrote: Here’s a copy of the Teletext character set; it includes box-drawing characters for all combinations of a 2×3 grid of cells. 2⁶ = 64 characters, so we might need a new block. [1]: http://www.galax.xyz/TELETEXT/CHARSET.HTM My old TRS-80 also did

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 04/05/2017 05:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote: As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and flimsier argument against inclusion Indeed. This is the chicken-and-egg problem, and you are not the first to (rightly) point it out as a flimsy excuse. Thanks for bringing it up

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Count me in! I’m partial for one large unified proposal, FWIW. On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > >> Michael Everson wrote: >> >> > Everybody interested, raise your hand… >>

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: > Michael Everson wrote: > > > Everybody interested, raise your hand… > > I'm in. I'm in as well of course. > Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > > > The question is, do we want to add these missing graphics characters > >

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Michael Everson wrote: > Everybody interested, raise your hand… I'm in. Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > The question is, do we want to add these missing graphics characters > incrementally, platform by platform, or put together a larger proposal > for, say, one big Block Elements Extended block?

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 5:25 AM, Michael Everson wrote: > At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will > get very detailed very quickly. > I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together?

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 Apr 2017, at 17:36, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > > At some point this should be taken off the main list since discussion will > get very detailed very quickly. > > I agree. How should we get all the interested parties together? Everybody interested, raise your hand…

Re: PETSCII mapping?

The Teletext set of 2x3 block characters also covers a significant chunk of the TRS-80 and CoCo character sets: http://www.kreativekorp.com/software/fonts/trs80.shtml I have been thinking of proposing those characters for a while, actually, and that would have been my next proposal after

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 Apr 2017, at 04:32, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > We do have to provide Unicode with fonts, I believe. We can use an existing > C64 font, such as Pet Me. Or, we can create a new font with vectorized > versions of the characters. I’ll help with that; we should

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Here’s a copy of the Teletext character set; it includes box-drawing characters for all combinations of a 2×3 grid of cells. 2⁶ = 64 characters, so we might need a new block. [1]: http://www.galax.xyz/TELETEXT/CHARSET.HTM

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 Apr 2017, at 08:25, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > Wouldn't it make sense to get in touch with active Commodore 64 communities > to find out how people deal with this today? I'm sure there are use cases > that none of us have thought about. Since most of the issue is

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Wouldn't it make sense to get in touch with active Commodore 64 communities to find out how people deal with this today? I'm sure there are use cases that none of us have thought about. Regards, Elias On 6 April 2017 at 15:19, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > I've completed my

Re: PETSCII mapping?

I've completed my unified chart: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10RJKTNFZFEww0yRVPzPdeNnyC_PUkAMhn7OVB7YdTFc/edit?usp=sharing The result is either 20 or 24 characters to be encoded, depending on whether or not 4 of them should be unified with existing characters. 14 have fairly obvious

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 April 2017 at 11:32, Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: We do have to provide Unicode with fonts, I believe. We can use an existing > C64 font, such as Pet Me. Or, we can create a new font with vectorized > versions of the characters. > Are there any existing C64 fonts with

Re: PETSCII mapping?

The Wikipedia page for PETSCII [1] only marks 20 characters as not having Unicode equivalents; 2px (light) and 3px (heavy) horizontal and vertical bars at various non-center positions, diagonal shading characters, and corner characters. I’ve done some processing to the table on [1] to filter out

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Rebecca Bettencourt wrote: > I'm all willing to help put together a proposal for encoding missing block > element characters, but I would need other people to a) gather evidence of > use in plain text and b) write up the proposal in Unicode's formal language > since I've never proposed characters

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 April 2017 at 09:44, James Kass wrote: > Rebecca Bettencourt wrote, > > > I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where > > they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :) > > I hope you do. That would be a good starting point. > I'm working on

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 6 April 2017 at 09:44, James Kass wrote: > Rebecca Bettencourt wrote, > > > I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where > > they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :) > > I hope you do. That would be a good starting point. > The Wikipedia

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Rebecca Bettencourt wrote, > I can put together a unified chart, with mappings to Unicode where > they exist. In fact I think I'll do that. :) I hope you do. That would be a good starting point. > I'm all willing to help put together a proposal for encoding missing > block element characters,

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 4/5/2017 4:49 PM, James Kass wrote: Asmus Freytag wrote, There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed not. How fortunate we are that nobody has posted any. Indeed. Grabbed the wrong item from my word bin today. A./ Best regards, James Kass

Re: PETSCII mapping?

I agree with Rebecca. It’s going to be a handful of characters, used by the handful of people who use legacy character sets. Those people exist (I run Mac OS 9 regularly because it’s necessary for some of my work) and since some of these legacy characters are encoded, it makes sense to make

Re: PETSCII mapping?

Asmus Freytag wrote, > There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric. Indeed not. How fortunate we are that nobody has posted any. Best regards, James Kass

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 4/5/2017 2:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote: > If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based systems and > those using PETSCII There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our society functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling

Re: PETSCII mapping?

> If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based systems and > those using PETSCII There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our society functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling computer in history [1] because nobody cared

Re: PETSCII mapping?

*From:* Unicode [mailto:unicode-boun...@unicode.org] * On Behalf Of *Rebecca > Bettencourt > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 5, 2017 9:42 AM > *To:* Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com> > *Cc:* unicode <unicode@unicode.org> > *Subject:* Re: PETSCII mapping? > > > > O

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote: > Unicode is not an archive of anything ever used on computers. > Why not? Isn't one of Unicode's goals to support the conversion of documents using legacy character sets into Unicode? I do not understand why, say, the

Re: PETSCII mapping?

On 4/5/2017 1:18 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: I have been searching, trying to find some information as to why there is a large set of symbols in PETSCII which cannot be mapped to Unicode. PETSCII is the character set used by