It looks like an overprinting of the 3 characters = ( )
Le 19 avr. 2013 09:57, David Starner prosfil...@gmail.com a écrit :
http://archive.org/details/bitsavers_sdcjovialTerDec61_12294913 is a
1961 programming book on the programming language Jovial. On page 7ff
is a character I've never seen
On Monday 15 April 2013, announceme...@unicode.org announceme...@unicode.org
wrote:
This change has been made to increase public involvement in the ongoing
deliberations of the UTC in its work developing and maintaining the Unicode
Standard and other related standards and reports.
On a
Given the displayed image resolution, there's no way to conclude that a new
character is needed. It could as well be an existing lozenge or an
overprint if = on top of (), or a triangle above an equal sgn, or something
else (already encoded or not). Nobody can conclude this is a distinctive
William J.G. Overington asked:
Suppose that a member of the public sends a document that seeks discussion
by the Unicode Technical Committee about whether the scope of what
Unicode encodes should be extended in some particular regard, with the
member of the public writing about why he or she
However, now that I've got your hopes up on procedural grounds...
Getting on to the particulars:
I do have two particular reasons for asking.
2. My research.
There is a document entitled locse027_four_simulations.pdf available from
the following forum post.
Not perfect, perhaps, but perfectly comprehensible. And the application will
even
do a very decent job of text to speech for you.
and
The quality of the
translation for these kinds of applications has rapidly improved in recent years
Not that the ability of MT to deal with
On 2013年4月19日, at 下午1:52, Stephan Stiller stephan.stil...@gmail.com wrote:
But I'd argue that the distance of the information content of such
low-quality translations to the information content conveyed by correct and
polished language is often tolerable. Grammar isn't that important for
On Apr 19, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Whistler, Ken wrote:
As regards any possible case for encoding localizable sentences *as
characters*,
in my opinion, the train long ago left the station for that one.
Indeed, people have been devising systems for representing words and sentences
via ordinary
As regards any possible case for encoding localizable sentences *as
characters*,
in my opinion, the train long ago left the station for that one.
Indeed, people have been devising systems for representing words and
sentences via ordinary numbers that worked just fine for at least 170
9 matches
Mail list logo
