The text of the first post in this thread was not recorded in the archive of
the Unicode Public Email List. Maybe because there was an attachment to the
post?
This post is so as to include a transcript of the text of that post in the
archive of the Unicode Public Email List.
William Overington
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:58:23 -0700
> From: Asmus Freytag
>
> On 4/20/2014 3:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Would someone please help understand the following subtleties and
> > obscure language in the UBA document found at
> > http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr9/? Thanks in advance.
>
> El
> From: James Clark
> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 08:54:34 +0700
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , unicode@unicode.org, Kenneth Whistler
>
>
> >X6. For all types besides B, BN, RLE, LRE, RLO, LRO, PDF, RLI, LRI,
> >FSI, and PDI:
> >
> >. Set the current character’s embedding level to the emb
> Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 23:03:20 -0700
> From: Asmus Freytag
> CC: Eli Zaretskii , unicode@unicode.org,
> Kenneth Whistler
>
> >> Note that the current embedding level is not changed by this rule.
> >>
> >> What does this last sentence mean by "the current embedding level"?
> >>
Glyphs designed for the internationalization of the web-based on-line shops of
museums and art galleries
Imagine please if museum and art gallery websites each were to have an
international webpage in its on-line shop.
If there were on the webpage colourful symbols, one each for Surname, Forena
> I am hoping to attach images showing the designs to other posts in this
> thread.
Please find attached an image of the designs of the colourful glyphs.
William Overington
21 April 2014
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org/
> I am hoping to attach images showing the designs to other posts in this
> thread.
Please find attached an image of the designs of the monochrome glyphs.
William Overington
21 April 2014
___
Unicode mailing list
Unicode@unicode.org
http://unicode.org
I am sorry, but this doesn’t look like internationalization. Rather it
seems like another attempt by the British to force their culture upon
the rest of the world. The richness of world-wide naming conventions for
people is simply ignored, Putin Vladimir Vladimirovič won’t be able to
use his fu
Doug Ewell wrote:
> It's labeled prominently as a "thought experiment," which means there is no
> expectation that anyone will implement the format or software which reads it,
> only think about what would happen if it were implemented.
Well, it states as follows.
quote
This is a thought exp
On 4/21/2014 1:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 23:03:20 -0700
From: Asmus Freytag
CC: Eli Zaretskii , unicode@unicode.org,
Kenneth Whistler
Note that the current embedding level is not changed by this rule.
What does this last sentence mean by "the current
On 4/21/2014 12:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
in some places, I concur with you that the wording could be improved
>and that such improved wording should be proposed to the UTC (or its
>editorial committee) for incorporation into a future update.
How do we do that?
You file a problem report usin
William_J_G Overington
wrote:
> My reason for putting "This is a thought experiment at present." was
> that the format has not been tested by me in practical application and
> is only theoretically based at the present time,
It's not, of course. It's specified in enough detail that conformant
fi
There are some cases where these rules will not be clear enough. Look at
the following where overlaps do occur; but directionality still matters:
"This is an [<<] example [>>] for demonstration only."
There are two parsings possible if you just consider a hierarchic layout
where overlaps are disa
Philippe,
I fail to understand how your post contributes to the topic.
The issue was unclear wording of the specification, not deficiencies in
the UBA or the PBA in general.
Let's keep this discussion limited to issues of wording for the
*existing* specification. Feel free to start a new dis
From: Asmus Freytag wrote:
> In general, I heartily dislike "specifications" that just narrate a
> particular implementation...
I agree completely. I see this with CLDR as well; there is a more or
less implicit assumption that I will be using ICU to implement whatever
is being described. I don't
It is on topic because the proposed description attempts to explain how
paired brackets should match and how this witll then affect the rendering
in bidirectional contexts. This is exactly the kind of things that are
difficult because the proposed description assumes that paired brackets are
organi
On 4/21/2014 11:23 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
It is on topic because the proposed description attempts to explain
how paired brackets should match and how this witll then affect the
rendering in bidirectional contexts. This is exactly the kind of
things that are difficult because the proposed de
On 4/21/2014 11:14 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
From: Asmus Freytag wrote:
In general, I heartily dislike "specifications" that just narrate a
particular implementation...
I agree completely. I see this with CLDR as well; there is a more or
less implicit assumption that I will be using ICU to implem
On 4/21/2014 2:47 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
I am hoping to attach images showing the designs to other posts in this thread.
Please find attached an image of the designs of the colourful glyphs.
The language I would use for my reaction to this, is just too colorful
to reproduce here :)
My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have not even
claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages of paired brackets
that do not obey to a pure hierarchy (because these notations use different
type of brackets, they are not ambiguous) but still preserve their left vs
On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have not
even claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages of
paired brackets that do not obey to a pure hierarchy (because these
notations use different type of brackets, they are
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:44:14PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >My intent was not to demonstrate a bug in the algorithm, I have
> >not even claimed that, but to make sure that (less common) usages
> >of paired brackets that do not obey to a pure hiera
Ilya noted:
> [Below, I completely ignore BIDI part of the specification, and
>concentrate ONLY on the parens match. I do not understand why this
>question is interlaced with BIDI determination; I trust that it is.]
Actually, it is, because the bracket-matching is really only int
Ilya,
I appreciate your taking the time to take apart Philippe's message. That
aspect of it was not obvious to me.
A./
PS: more comments below
On 4/21/2014 4:41 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 02:44:14PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 4/21/2014 1:54 PM, Philippe Verdy w
On 4/21/2014 5:44 PM, Whistler, Ken wrote:
> So one may ask: what will be the result of the CURRENT UNICODE parsing
> applied
> to Phillipe’s example?
>
> This is an [«] example [»] for demonstration only.
That is easily answered. Let's crank up the bidi reference code with
a shorter exa
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Here's the text I supplied, with numbers added for discussion. It
> definitely needs some
> editing, but the point of the exercise would be to see what:
>
> 1. A bracket pair is a pair of characters consisting of an opening
>
On 4/21/2014 8:32 PM, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:08:12PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Here's the text I supplied, with numbers added for discussion. It
definitely needs some
editing, but the point of the exercise would be to see what:
1. A bracket pair is a pair of
27 matches
Mail list logo
