Re: IDC's versus Egyptian format controls

[Martin J. Dürst via Unicode]

On 2018/02/17 08:25, James Kass via Unicode wrote:


Some people studying Han characters use the IDCs to illustrate the
ideographs and their components for various purposes.


Well, as far as I understand, this was their original (and is still 
their main) purpose.



For example:

U-0002A8B8 𪢸 ⿰土土
U-0002A8B9 𪢹 ⿰土凡
U-0002A8BA 𪢺 ⿱夂土
U-0002A8BB 𪢻 ⿰土亡
U-0002A8BC 𪢼 ⿰土无
U-0002A8BD 𪢽 ⿰土冇
U-0002A8BE 𪢾 ⿰土攴
U-0002A8BF 𪢿 ⿰土月
U-0002A8C0 𪣀 ⿰土化
U-0002A8C1 𪣁 ⿰土丰


Is it only me or did you get some of this data wrong?

For me, it looks definitely like
U-0002A8BC 𪢼 ⿰土化
rather than U-0002A8BC 𪢼 ⿰土无,
and U-0002A8BF 𪢿 ⿰土水
rather than U-0002A8BF 𪢿 ⿰土月,
and changes seem to be needed for all the others, too. (The descriptions 
seem to be four lines later than the characters where they actually belong.)



It would be probably be disconcerting if the display of those
sequences changed into their respective characters overnight.


Yes indeed.

Regards,   Martin.

Re: Coloured Characters (was: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

[Richard Wordingham via Unicode]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:04:34 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode  wrote:

> On the opposite, colored in Arabic or hieroglyph texts is a a useful
> emphasize and sometimes semantically significant (some rare old
> scripts also used dictinctive colors): we are in a case similar to
> encoded semantic variants for mathematics symbols. But here again
> color cause a severe problem of accessibility and rendering on
> various surfaces (e.g. is the paper/screen white or black ?

In my case, I just used the colours 'foreground' and 'red'.  They work
well on both light and dark backgrounds.  The difference wasn't so
easy to see when the foreground was a different shade of red!

> cannot see the encoded color correctly and it is interpreted
> verbatim, the text will not be readable at all; what is really needed
> is a set of symbolic colors: normal color, color vaiant 1, color
> variant 2, and Unicode can perfectly encode these as combining
> diacritics !)

Heraldry has the same problem when objects are depicted in their
natural colours.  (The colour term then used in English heraldry is
'proper'.)  Microsoft has a scheme of palettes, but the design is that
the application choose the palette from a predefined list. The font can
nominate palettes for light and dark backgrounds; otherwise the
selection protocol is completely up to the application. 'Foreground'
and 'background' are the only externally defined colours. There's no
ability to explicitly choose, say 'text stroked sable and dotted
gules'.  Instead, it's 'text stroked sable and dotted proper', with a
choice of palettes to define 'proper'.

Richard.

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

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 2/21/2018 11:45 AM, David Starner
  via Unicode wrote:


  

  On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy
via Unicode  wrote:
  
  
“Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English
  word attested back to 1590.
  
  
  
  Curmudgeony may be identified as misspelled by Google,
but it's got a bit of usage dating back a hundred years.
Wiktionary's entry at [[-y]] says "This suffix is still very
productive and can be added to almost any word.", and that
matches my feeling that this is a perfectly good word, a
perfectly wordy word, even if it wouldn't be used in formal
English.
  

  

Normally the ending -ly would mark an adverb.
But not in this case. Which may be why some people feel
consciously or not that the "l" is extra.
  
A./

  

Re: Coloured Characters (was: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

I'm not speaking about hieroglyphs, even if they are perfectly readable in
monochrome on monuments.

I was just saying that colorful **emojis** are just a nuisance and colors
in them do not add any semantic value (except possibly flags, skin tones
were added only to avoid a never-ending battle on ethnic biases in
implementations, but even there the disambiguation should make the country
name readable and accessible, and for skin tones most of the time they are
not meaningful at all!) except making them more visible and in fact look
spamming and needlessly distracting. Given that emojis are extremely
ambiguous, unreadable and mean actually everything and look very different
across implementations, their colorful aspect is also not semantically
useful.

On the opposite, colored in Arabic or hieroglyph texts is a a useful
emphasize and sometimes semantically significant (some rare old scripts
also used dictinctive colors): we are in a case similar to encoded semantic
variants for mathematics symbols. But here again color cause a severe
problem of accessibility and rendering on various surfaces (e.g. is the
paper/screen white or black ? if you cannot see the encoded color correctly
and it is interpreted verbatim, the text will not be readable at all; what
is really needed is a set of symbolic colors: normal color, color vaiant 1,
color variant 2, and Unicode can perfectly encode these as combining
diacritics !)


2018-02-21 20:54 GMT+01:00 Richard Wordingham via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org>:

> On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:28:14 +0100
> Philippe Verdy via Unicode  wrote:
>
> > I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es,
> > mobiles, and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render
> > them as monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the
> > colorful extensions of OpenType made for them.
>
> But hieroglyphs look so much better in colour!  What's more, they were
> meant to be read in colour.  If you want monochrome, you should make do
> with hieratic!
>
> On a more practical level, I've made a font that colours subscript coda
> consonants differently to subscript onset consonants for the purpose of
> proof-reading Northern Thai text.  It was a pleasant surprise to see
> colour-coded suggested spelling corrections when I used it on Firefox.
> I had installed the spell-checker for LibreOffice, which currently
> lacks the colour capability, but Firefox helped itself to it.
>
> So you may not like emoji, but the colour extensions have perfectly
> good uses.
>
> Richard.
>

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

[Christoph Päper via Unicode]

Philippe Verdy:
>
> I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es, mobiles,
> and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render them as
> monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the colorful
> extensions of OpenType made for them.

See  and linked issues for CSS.

Re: Suggestions?

[David Starner via Unicode]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:55 AM Jeb Eldridge via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:

> Where can I post suggestions and feedback for Unicode?
>

Here is as good as any place. There are specific places for a few specific
things, but likely if you do have something that's likely to get changed,
you'll need the help of someone here to get through the process. It is a
quarter-century old technical standard embedded in most electronics, so I
would temper any expectations for major changes; it works the way it works
because that's the way previous versions worked, and nobody is interested
in the trouble changing them would involve.

Coloured Characters (was: 0027, 02BC, 2019, or a new character?)

[Richard Wordingham via Unicode]

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:28:14 +0100
Philippe Verdy via Unicode  wrote:

> I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es,
> mobiles, and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render
> them as monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the
> colorful extensions of OpenType made for them.

But hieroglyphs look so much better in colour!  What's more, they were
meant to be read in colour.  If you want monochrome, you should make do
with hieratic!

On a more practical level, I've made a font that colours subscript coda
consonants differently to subscript onset consonants for the purpose of
proof-reading Northern Thai text.  It was a pleasant surprise to see
colour-coded suggested spelling corrections when I used it on Firefox.
I had installed the spell-checker for LibreOffice, which currently
lacks the colour capability, but Firefox helped itself to it.

So you may not like emoji, but the colour extensions have perfectly
good uses.

Richard.

Re: Suggestions?

[James Kass via Unicode]

http://www.unicode.org/faq/faq_on_faqs.html#34

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

[David Starner via Unicode]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:40 AM John W Kennedy via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:

> “Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English word attested back to 1590.
>

Curmudgeony may be identified as misspelled by Google, but it's got a bit
of usage dating back a hundred years. Wiktionary's entry at [[-y]] says
"This suffix is still very productive and can be added to almost any
word.", and that matches my feeling that this is a perfectly good word, a
perfectly wordy word, even if it wouldn't be used in formal English.

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

[Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode]

On 2/21/2018 9:23 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode 
mailto:unicode@unicode.org>>:


Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)

Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in 
dictionaries. Probably alocalUS jargon or typo in your strange word.



Sorry for the typo. Dropped an "l". :-[

curmudgeonly from curmudgeon+ly

The word is attested from the late 1500s in the forms /curmudgeon/ and 
/curmudgen/, and during the 17th century in numerous spelling variants, 
including /cormogeon, cormogion, cormoggian, cormudgeon, curmudgion, 
curmuggion, curmudgin, curr-mudgin, curre-megient/.


Don't think the US existed in the late 1500s...

A./

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

[John W Kennedy via Unicode]

“Curmudgeonly” is a perfectly good English word attested back to 1590.

--

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 12:23 PM, Philippe Verdy via Unicode 
>  wrote:
> 
> 2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :
>> Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)
> Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in dictionaries. 
> Probably a local US jargon or typo in your strange word.
> 

Re: Suggestions?

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

The Unicode website has a section for feedback in its menu, but in separate
projects for TUS and for CLDR.
There are also feedbacks requested for every proposed amendment to the
standard, annexes, and data. First search the relevant topic on the
website, then look at the side bar if there's no specific feedback link on
the main page content.
Feedback or proposals are submitted within an online form, and will then be
forwarded by email to interested subcommities and possible subscribers.
For data submission to CLDR, this is done by the survey tool, when it is
open.
For reference implementations, that have an opensourced repository,
feedback is submitted via the links given in the repository itself.

Basically, you need to look for the most relevant topic, and then use the
appropriate link so that this can be sorted and sent to the correct people.
There's also a feedback for questions related to Unicode memberships, or
for legal requests.

There's also a general feedback link, but don't expect an emergency
response, it may take time to reach the right people to get an answer, and
unsorted/unqualified feedbacks take time to be classified and extracted
from the fog of incoming spams or non-relevant submissions.

If you don't know where to post, this mailing list can guide you, but this
is not the place to submit a formal request, and various people (including
me) may reply to you, and any reply you would receive from this list is not
endorsed ofciially by Unicode, this is more a "community" list used to
interconnect interested people and discuss about how to improve the
proposals, or being guided before submitting a qualified formal request, or
ask for peer review before submitting it.

2018-02-21 16:23 GMT+01:00 Jeb Eldridge via Unicode :

>
>
>
>
> Where can I post suggestions and feedback for Unicode?
>
>
>
>
>

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

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

2018-02-21 18:10 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :

> Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)
>
Don't know what it means, never heard that word, not found in dictionaries.
Probably a local US jargon or typo in your strange word.

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

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 2/21/2018 7:28 AM, Philippe Verdy
  via Unicode wrote:


  

  2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled
Hosny :
Now if
  he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it
  would
  have been a lot more obvious, but we already established
  that the world
  does not need emoji.



No, I don't need emojis. Any emoji means all or
  nothing, they are just unnecessary and annoying
  eye-catching distractions.
I even hope that there will be a setting in all
  browsers, OS'es, mobiles, and apps to refuse any colorful
  rendering, and just render them as monochromatic symbols.
  In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the colorful extensions of
  OpenType made for them.
  

  

Feeling a bit curmudgeony, are we, today? :-)

  

Re: Suggestions?

[Asmus Freytag via Unicode]

  
  
On 2/21/2018 7:23 AM, Jeb Eldridge via
  Unicode wrote:


  
  
  
  
 
 
Where can I post suggestions and feedback
  for Unicode?
 
 
  

What kinds of suggestions / what kind of
feedback are we talking about?
A./

  

Suggestions?

[Jeb Eldridge via Unicode]

Where can I post suggestions and feedback for Unicode?

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

[Philippe Verdy via Unicode]

2018-02-21 15:51 GMT+01:00 Khaled Hosny :

> Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would
> have been a lot more obvious, but we already established that the world
> does not need emoji.
>

No, I don't need emojis. Any emoji means all or nothing, they are just
unnecessary and annoying eye-catching distractions.
I even hope that there will be a setting in all browsers, OS'es, mobiles,
and apps to refuse any colorful rendering, and just render them as
monochromatic symbols. In summary, COMPLETETY DISABLE the colorful
extensions of OpenType made for them.

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

[Khaled Hosny via Unicode]

Now if he had used an emoji that shows the mode of the text it would
have been a lot more obvious, but we already established that the world
does not need emoji.

Regards,
Khaled

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 05:31:10AM +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
> Sorry, but such English subtle interpretations are not in my mind, don't
> suppose everyone uses the second degree everytime something is posted here,
> these are just unneeded diversions causing trouble, it does not make the
> thread clear to follow.
> 
> 2018-02-21 5:15 GMT+01:00 James Kass :
> 
> > Philippe, it was a jest.  (Good one, too!)
> >