+1
I'm also guilty of pushing through one particular proposal (much to Ken's
disliking) that I most certainly would no longer even try, but, alas, times
were different.
Sincerely, Erkki
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org]
Pu
On 8/24/2011 7:45 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Which earlier coding system supported Welsh? (I'm thinking of 'W WITH
CIRCUMFLEX', U+0174 and U+0175.) How was the use of the canonical
decompositions incompatible with the character encodings of legacy
systems? Latin-1 has the same codes as ISO
I fully agree with Doug. Citing the CLDR project as something similar is
totally wrong. CLDR affects a very large number of users, which justifies
the investment into the project, whereas PUA is of very little general
interest.
Sincerely, Erkki
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: unicode-
2011/8/25 Andrew Cunningham :
> so you will end up with the CSUR AND the registry Philippe is
> suggesting AND all the existing uses of PUA that will not end up in
> CSUR or the other registry.
>
> sounds like it will be a mess.
>
> its bad enough dealing with Unicode and pseudo-Unicode in the Myan
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:07:03 -0700
Ken Whistler wrote:
> > The
> > BMP is littered with concessions to the limitations of rendering
> > systems - precomposed characters, Hangul syllables and Arabic
> > presentation forms are the most significant.
> Those are not concessions to "the limitation
From: ver...@gmail.com [mailto:ver...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> 2011/8/22 Peter Constable :
>> Of course _OpenType_ cannot, but any rendering engine that uses OpenType
>> _must_ resolve the bidi level of _all_ characters in a sequence that it is
>> given to
>> render. Given our
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of Philippe Verdy
> But I suspect that the strong opposition given by Peter Constable...
Yet again, I think you're putting words in my mouth. The only thing I think
I've explicitly spoken against in this thread is c
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of Philippe Verdy
> Lookup tables in fonts (at least OpenType) do not work at the character
> level, but at the glyph level: they substitute glyph ids by other glyph ids.
That much is true.
> Sequences of glyph id
From: ver...@gmail.com [mailto:ver...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
>2011/8/22 Joó Ádám :
>> Speaking of actual implementation, I’m convinced that this format
>> should be the same as it is for encoded characters ...
> As well, the small properties files can be embedded, in a very compa
so you will end up with the CSUR AND the registry Pilippe is
suggesting AND all the existing uses of PUA that will not end up in
CSUR or the other registry.
sounds like it will be a mess.
its bad enough dealing with Unicode and pseudo-Unicode in the Myanmar
script, adding PUA potentially into the
2011/8/24 Doug Ewell :
> As Richard said, and you probably already know, there is no chance that
> UTC will ever do anything with the PUA, especially anything that gives
> the appearance of endorsing its use. I'm just thankful they haven't
> deprecated it.
The appearance of endorsing its use woul
s/one font/one code point/
--
Doug Ewell • d...@ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: "Doug Ewell"
Sender: unicode-bou...@unicode.org
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:39:24
To:
Reply-To: d...@ewellic.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: Multiple private agreements (was: RE: Code p
They won't do it. You can be sure of that.
--
Doug Ewell • d...@ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Verdy
Sender: unicode-bou...@unicode.org
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 03:13:02
To: Richard Wordingham
Reply-To: verd...@wanadoo.fr
Cc:
Subject: Re: Multip
Philippe wrote:
> But my initial suggestion implied that condition 3 was not part of it.
This is not me, but sriva that has modified the problem. The problem
was changed later by adding new conditions that I have never intended.
It is clear that this condition 3 is completely unsatisfiable in all
2011/8/24 Richard Wordingham :
>> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:29:58 PM Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Even the UTC could create its own PUA registry,
>
> It won't. The best you can hope for is a list of registries.
I did not meant as a part of the standard itself, but as a separate
subproject (jus
2011/8/25 Richard Wordingham :
> It will only happen when the need becomes obvious, which may be never,
> or may be 30 years hence. It's even conceivable that UTF-16 will
> drop out of use.
"Conceivable" but extremely unlikely because it will remain used in
extremely frequent cases, even if it can
2011/8/24 Doug Ewell :
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>>> (1) a plain-text file
>>> (2) using only plain-text conventions (i.e. not adding rich text)
>>> (3) which contains the same PUA code point with two meanings
>>> (4) using different fonts or other mechanisms
>>> (5) in a platform-independent, det
On 8/24/2011 3:51 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Well, in that case, the correct action is to work to ensure that code
> points are not squandered.
Have there not already been several failures on that front? The BMP is
littered with concessions to the limitations of rendering systems -
precompo
2011/8/24 John H. Jenkins :
>
> John Hudson 於 2011年8月23日 下午9:08 寫道：
>
>> I think you may be right that quite a lot of existing OTL functionality
>> wouldn't be affected by applying BiDi after glyph shaping: logical order and
>> resolved order are often identical in terms of GSUB input. But it is
It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. It's a stiff.
Bereft of life, it rests in peace.…Its metabolic processes are now history.
It's off the twig. It's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off its mortal coil,
run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. Thi
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:40:54 -0700
Ken Whistler wrote:
> On 8/24/2011 10:48 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> if, say,
>> code points are squandered.
> Oh.
> Well, in that case, the correct action is to work to ensure that code
> points are not squandered.
Have there not already been sever
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Richard Wordingham
wrote:
> Expanding on Mark's answer, the basic difference is whether a character
> of Bidi class ET (percentage-type and currency symbols) when stored
> before or after European or Persian etc. digits goes to their left or
> right. For Arabic,
On 8/24/2011 10:48 AM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Those are two different claims. 'Never say never' is a useful maxim.
So is "Leave well enough alone."
The problem would be in using maxims instead
of an analysis of engineering requirements to drive architectural decisions.
The extension of U
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:35:48 -0700
"Doug Ewell" wrote:
> UAX #44, Table 13 ("Bidi_Class Values") includes the following
> descriptions:
>
> R - Right_To_Left - any strong right-to-left (non-Arabic-type)
> character AL - Arabic_Letter - any strong right-to-left (Arabic-type)
> character
>
> But
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:02:42 -0700
"Doug Ewell" wrote:
> But some people seem to be dead serious about the need to go beyond
> 1.1 million code points, and are making dead-serious arguments that
> we need to plan for it.
Those are two different claims. 'Never say never' is a useful maxim.
The e
The difference between them is subtle (and I've long been convinced that
having the distinction was a mistake, but that's water under the bridge).
It is in their effect on European numbers that occur after them, in
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/#W2 (and following).
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inim
UAX #44, Table 13 ("Bidi_Class Values") includes the following
descriptions:
R - Right_To_Left - any strong right-to-left (non-Arabic-type) character
AL - Arabic_Letter - any strong right-to-left (Arabic-type) character
But I can't find any definition, here or elsewhere, of what constitutes
an "A
William_J_G Overington
wrote:
>>> Until then, I find further speculation rather pointless and would
>>> love if it moved off this list (until such time).
>
> It is harmless fun, indeed it is fun that assists learning and
> understanding, and so as long as it does not go on for a long time,
> I th
Asmus Freytag 於 2011年8月23日 下午2:00 寫道：
>
> Until then, I find further speculation rather pointless and would love if it
> moved off this list (until such time).
>
That would be wonderful, because we could then turn our attention to more
urgent subjects, such as what to do when the sun reache
John Hudson 於 2011年8月23日 下午9:08 寫道：
> I think you may be right that quite a lot of existing OTL functionality
> wouldn't be affected by applying BiDi after glyph shaping: logical order and
> resolved order are often identical in terms of GSUB input. But it is in the
> cases where they are not
Luke-Jr wrote:
> Too bad the Conscript registry is censoring assignments the maintainer
> doesn't like for unspecified personal reasons, increasing the chances
> of an overlap.
This isn't censorship, which would imply some sort of political,
ethical, or moral agenda. This is a registrar making
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> (1) a plain-text file
>> (2) using only plain-text conventions (i.e. not adding rich text)
>> (3) which contains the same PUA code point with two meanings
>> (4) using different fonts or other mechanisms
>> (5) in a platform-independent, deterministic way
>>
>> One or mor
Thank you to Doug and to Asmus for replying.
Originally I was thinking of the format simply being so as to help to level the
infrastructural ground as between a PUA (Private Use Area) application using
left-to-right characters and a PUA application using right-to-left characters.
However, th
On 23 août 2011 21:44 "Richard Wordingham"
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:18:21 +0200
> Jean-François Colson wrote:
>
> > And what dou you think about (H1,H2,VS1,L3,L4)?
>
> The L4 is unnecessary. The trick then is to think of a BMP
> character that would very rarely be searched for on its
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:34:05 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2011/8/24 Luke-Jr :
> > On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 10:29:58 PM Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Even the UTC could create its own PUA registry,
It won't. The best you can hope for is a list of registries.
> Now which font format will be the b
On Tuesday 23 August 2011, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Asmus Freytag wrote:
> > Until then, I find further speculation rather pointless and would love if
> > it moved off this list (until such time).
> +1
-0.7
It is harmless fun, indeed it is fun that assists learning and understanding,
and s
36 matches
Mail list logo
