Re: Standardizing codepoints
Thank you all for your advice. Jacque, normalizeText() was what I had vaguely remembered but couldn’t find. Richmond, I am working on a library that removes emojis from text and replaces them with imageSource... so that the text can be printed to PDF on mobile. You are correct about the “going blue in the face” bit. And I’m pretty sure what I’m doing is just one step up from nothing. — Scott > On Nov 15, 2020, at 9:21 AM, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode > wrote: > > See the normalizeText entry in the dictionary, I think that might be what you > mean. > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On November 15, 2020 4:17:14 AM scott--- via use-livecode > wrote: > >> I’m a little over my head in this area so I may not be describing this quite >> right… >> Some unicode glyphs seem to be describable with different (arrangements of) >> codepoints. Is it possible to coerce the glyph to be described in a >> “standard” way? >> >> -- >> Scott Morrow >> >> Elementary Software >> (Now with 20% less chalk dust!) >> web https://elementarysoftware.com/ >> email sc...@elementarysoftware.com >> booth1-360-734-4701 >> -- ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Standardizing codepoints
See the normalizeText entry in the dictionary, I think that might be what you mean. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com On November 15, 2020 4:17:14 AM scott--- via use-livecode wrote: I’m a little over my head in this area so I may not be describing this quite right… Some unicode glyphs seem to be describable with different (arrangements of) codepoints. Is it possible to coerce the glyph to be described in a “standard” way? -- Scott Morrow Elementary Software (Now with 20% less chalk dust!) web https://elementarysoftware.com/ email sc...@elementarysoftware.com booth1-360-734-4701 -- ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Standardizing codepoints
I don't know what sort of situation you are describing. I can only imagine you mean describing something like û as either u + circumflex, or circumflexed u (ie, on glyph). If you go here: https://www.unicode.org/charts/ apart from going blue in the face at the absolutely mind-blowing extent of the thing, you can isolate almost every glyph you can imagine as a single glyph (rather than a combination of several0. If you are referring to surrogate pairs: forget them quickly, they are old hat and guaranteed to give you a permanent cluster headache. Best, Richmond. On 15.11.20 12:15, scott--- via use-livecode wrote: I’m a little over my head in this area so I may not be describing this quite right… Some unicode glyphs seem to be describable with different (arrangements of) codepoints. Is it possible to coerce the glyph to be described in a “standard” way? -- Scott Morrow Elementary Software (Now with 20% less chalk dust!) web https://elementarysoftware.com/ email sc...@elementarysoftware.com booth1-360-734-4701 -- ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Re: Standardizing codepoints
What do you mean with standard? Do you mean that some combined codepoints show up as one glyph and your question is if there is one codepoint for every such combination? Or do you mean that several seemingly identical glyphs might have different codepoints? Unicode actually has a good introduction on their site: https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/ch01.pdf that might answer some of your questions. :-Håkan On 15 Nov 2020, 11:16 +0100, scott--- via use-livecode , wrote: > I’m a little over my head in this area so I may not be describing this quite > right… > Some unicode glyphs seem to be describable with different (arrangements of) > codepoints. Is it possible to coerce the glyph to be described in a > “standard” way? > > -- > Scott Morrow > > Elementary Software > (Now with 20% less chalk dust!) > web https://elementarysoftware.com/ > email sc...@elementarysoftware.com > booth 1-360-734-4701 > -- > > > > > > > > > ___ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
