On 5/22/2012 2:22 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 22 May 2012, at 06:13, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Before this discussion deep ends.
There is an early precedent, going back to the Euro sign, of Unicode adding a new
character instead of "repurposing" any existing character that may
On 5/22/2012 2:23 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 22 May 2012, at 08:11, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
Am 22.05.2012 um 00:22 schrieb Michael Everson:
If Greece ceases to use the euro and uses the drachma instead, and if they
create any kind of symbol for it, I think whatever glyph is devised will be
This came out of an offline discussion, but I answered this in some
detail and think it's useful to have this associated with the discussion
on the list.
A./
On 5/22/2012 12:40 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
Am 22.05.2012 um 07:13 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
There is an early precedent,
On 5/22/2012 4:10 PM, Benjamin M Scarborough wrote:
(Personally, I don't understand the current hubbub about inventing new
currency signs, but whatever.) —Ben Scarborough
Currency symbol envy, pure and simple.
The Euro started it - it was intended to challenge pound and dollar,
that was prob
Unicode did not encode the construction diagram (or logo) for the Euro,
so all the carping about that is a red herring.
For the Euro, see 20AC at
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U20A0.pdf
Nevertheless, the construction diagram for the Euro, with it's open
circle, provided some form of starti
On 5/23/2012 11:01 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Note also that the German mark was pretty much always just "DM"
Well, looking at my stamp collection, I can see old German stamps with
symbols that look like script-style “m” (with the height of digits)
and script-style “M”.
Correct. And t
oding model and isn't the script
dead and more of that.
None of that helps me to a practical way to use the UCS to publish Unifon
texts, in paper form or in eBook form.
That's a whole hell of a lot more aggravating than a currency sign. At least to
me.
On 28 May 2012, at 01:29, Do
Some of the features in those keyboard standards seem of sufficient
complexity that I can't imagine anyone other than specially trained
typists to ever be using them. That would presumably dampen the
enthusiasm of anybody in the business of catering to "average users".
I'm basing that on perso
On 5/29/2012 1:58 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 29 May 2012, at 09:43, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 5/27/2012 5:52 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
Get over it. Please just get over it. It doesn't matter. It's a blort.
Time to agree with Michael.
About Unifon?
About the part quoted above,
On 5/29/2012 10:31 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
It’s no more urgent than encoding a new phonetic or mathematical
symbol or hieroglyph. You still have to allow ten years or so for
delivery (i.e., for everything needed to make the symbol *reasonably*
safe to use in information interchange and pr
On 5/29/2012 12:42 PM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
2012/5/29 Doug Ewell mailto:d...@ewellic.org>>
I was specifically, and only, referring to a character proposal—any
proposal—being dubbed "urgent" on the basis that a font hack has been
identified.
Just look what happened when the Japa
On 5/29/2012 12:00 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Sovereign countries are free to decree currency symbols, whatever
their motivation or the putative artistic or typographic merits of
the symbol in question. Not for Unicode to judge.
The simple fact is, the usage scenario for
On 5/29/2012 9:34 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
For comparison: The design of the euro sign was published in 1996. It
was added to Unicode in version 2.1 in 1998. As physical money, notes
and coins, the euro was taken into use in 2002. Considerable resources
were spent into the introduction of
On 5/30/2012 7:19 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/5/31 Michael Everson:
On 31 May 2012, at 00:24, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
Members of ISO National Bodies quite properly thought that it is inapprioprate
for an International Standard to encode the flags of some countries and not the
flags of others. Y
On 5/31/2012 2:06 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/5/31 Asmus Freytag:
On 5/30/2012 7:19 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/5/31 Michael Everson:
On 31 May 2012, at 00:24, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
Members of ISO National Bodies quite properly thought that it is
inapprioprate for an International
On 5/30/2012 11:29 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The situation became a problem when the Japanese ISO 646 started to be
mapped to Unicode/ISO/IEC 10646 within fonts using incorrect mappings.
This occured in the early stages of ISO/IEC 10646 development.
The situation was a problem a long time befo
On 5/31/2012 8:56 AM, Shawn Steele wrote:
We are missing the JOLLY ROGER.
At least one, there're lots :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_flag#Jolly_Roger_gallery
A, glyph variants.
Ar, you're right, missed that :)
No, that's a misunderstanding of glyph variants.
Some of them c
On 5/30/2012 10:15 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
A seemingly straightforward solution to the “unambiguous mapping”
problem would be to use the existing Plane 14 tag letters along with a
new FLAG TAG, say at U+E0002. Then would
unequivocally denote the current Swiss flag. No need for separate lead
and
or shark flags or dive flags wouldn't be used much in
print?
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of Asmus Freytag
Sent: Poʻahā, Mei 31, 2012 9:00 AM
To: verd...@wanadoo.fr
Cc: Michael Everson; unicode Unicode Discu
On 5/31/2012 9:30 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 17:19, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Some of them can be substituted and will be recognized by all as "jolly roger",
others will not.
The former set "may" be glyph variants - that is, if there's no contrastive
On 5/31/2012 9:34 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 31 May 2012, at 17:26, Asmus Freytag wrote:
you put your finger on it. Any form of combining scheme is doomed to fail.
That's why http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3680.pdf was the right
solution.
No Michael.
While I've c
On 5/31/2012 12:07 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012 um 20:09 schrieb John H. Jenkins:
JHJ>
JHJ> ... that because some
JHJ> countries have currency symbols with decidated code points, other
JHJ> countries will make *new* currency symbols and demand that *they*
JHJ> get d
On 5/31/2012 1:56 PM, Shawn Steele wrote:
> First, reprinting Shakespeare's
works using flags would make it immediately
> and utterly illegible to most
speakers of English. So they would fail the test
On 5/31/2012 12:03 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Another alphabet, even that with 1:1 correspondence to Latin, but,
again, not recognizable as such are the "dancing men". They at least
can be demonstrated to have appeared in print.
Are substitution ciphers candidates for encoding?
To the degree that
On 5/31/2012 3:13 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/5/31 Asmus Freytag:
On 5/30/2012 10:15 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
A seemingly straightforward solution to the “unambiguous mapping” problem
would be to use the existing Plane 14 tag letters along with a new FLAG TAG,
say at U+E0002. Then would
On 5/31/2012 3:29 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/5/31 Asmus Freytag:
On 5/31/2012 12:07 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 31. Mai 2012 um 20:09 schrieb John H. Jenkins:
JHJ>
JHJ>... that because some
JHJ>countries have currency symbols with decidated code points,
On 5/31/2012 5:06 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 1 Jun 2012, at 00:59, Doug Ewell wrote:
So I could propose, say, the Pigpen cipher?
I would rather you help convince people about the Unifon proposal.
hehe.
A./
PS:what's Unifon and what's it got to do with it?
Coding solutions that require substantial support across implementations
are successful, if (and I argue, only if) you can't successfully sell
your implementation in a given market without support for that feature.
Mathematical layout is not needed by the majority of users, but those
users tha
On 6/1/2012 12:01 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/6/1 Asmus Freytag:
The chances that any form of meta encoding for symbols (including ligation)
will ever reach critical mass in support is less than for
Latin/Greek/Cyrillic accents, because - as of today - there's no established
use for a
On 6/2/2012 2:22 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/6/2 William_J_G Overington:
An interesting spin-off could be that the introduction of such an encoding
could lead to the introduction of chromatic font technology by industry.
I've been waiting for long for fonts embedding colorful glyphs (that
a
On 6/9/2012 11:54 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
I agree with Philippe on this one. It's not up to Unicode to decide
whether a script is "practical," easy to read, easy to write, etc. But
if there is any sort of intellectual property claim that imposes any
conditions on the use of the script, including
On 6/9/2012 1:14 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/6/9 Asmus Freytag:
People may make claims all they want, but it's a question of whether such
claims are enforceable.
But it's not up to us to test it. There's just a proposal by someone
that also claims copyright and patents at t
On 6/9/2012 12:56 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
It is up to the UTC and to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2 to request serious evidence of use
for things which seem of doubtful practicality, however.
And in so saying, I'd like to see a shopping list, hastily written. Notes taken
at speed in class. Personal sig
On 6/9/2012 3:30 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 9 Jun 2012, at 23:08, Doug Ewell wrote:
But I think this is a matter of UTC and WG2 determining whether the script is in actual
use, not of determining whether it is a "good" script in terms of the criteria
that Stephan Stiller laid out.
One thi
On 6/9/2012 3:35 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 9 Jun 2012, at 23:09, Asmus Freytag wrote:
And in so saying, I'd like to see a shopping list, hastily written. Notes taken
at speed in class. Personal signatures.
Practicality doesn't enter.
Yes, it does, O wise and axiomatic A
On 6/10/2012 12:48 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 10 Jun 2012, at 00:45, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 6/9/2012 3:30 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
One thing I would consider is the fact that most of the "new" scripts which
have been encoded experienced stages of development. Bamum, fo
On 6/20/2012 8:09 PM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Ken Whistler wrote:
I don't see any necessary correlation between what sequences
people might end up insisting on naming (for whatever reason) and what
people might consider to be "graphemes".
I submit that the fol
On 6/21/2012 3:22 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Not much, if they use the Lulu route, as they already have an account
set up. An hour of somebody's time should do it.
And at a Lulu price, there'll be a lot more of a market than at an
Addison-Wesley price!
The Unicode Standard easily uses hundr
OK. Will they always be in NFC?
To apply Ken's dictume to this case:
That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
Unless it's excluded from the start, anytime you limit it, when the time
comes you need something like that, you have to invent a new
property/m
On 6/21/2012 7:51 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 06/21/2012 01:45 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
OK. Will they always be in NFC?
To apply Ken's dictume to this case:
That seems like a straitjacket looking for an unwilling wearer. ;-)
Unless it's excluded from the start, a
On 6/21/2012 2:56 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
But the point is not just the sequence, but also the name for it. What do
you propose?
Well I couldn't propose a name conforming to the naming rules without
revealing what was mung
There are many characters that are used in professional mathematical
typesetting (division slash being one of them) that need to be narrowly
distinguished from other, roughly similar characters. The point is that
these characters can be distinguished from each other when printed, and
that there
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of *not* using the DIVISION SIGN (÷)
for
On 7/10/2012 4:50 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/7/10 Leif Halvard Silli :
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not without a link
to the (also) European tradition of *not
On 7/10/2012 4:57 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-10 13:50, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
[…]
The proper thing to do would be to add these usages to the list of
examples of known contextually defined usages of punctuation
characters, they are
On 7/10/2012 5:33 AM, Andrew West wrote:
On 10 July 2012 11:50, Leif Halvard Silli
wrote:
My candidate characters, this round, are:
DIVISION SIGN (÷) as minus sign.
COLON (:) as division sign.
MIDDLE DOT (·) as multiplication symbol.
The last one is already encoded as U+22C5
On 7/10/2012 11:25 AM, Christoph Päper wrote:
Leif Halvard Silli:
* that the DIVISION SIGN in the (human) mathematical notation of
at least one language (Norwegian) functions as a stylistically
distinct MINUS sign.
Ain’t that a stylistic, glyphic (i.e. font-dependent) variant of ‘⁒’
On 7/9/2012 11:51 PM, Joó Ádám wrote:
A very quick browse of Wikipedia showed me that the
colon as division sign is common in Ukraine, Russia, Sweden and Germany
too. (Thus, English Wikipedia fittingly acknowledges that 'In some
non-English-speaking cultures, "a divided by b" is written a : b.' [
On 7/9/2012 11:04 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-10 5:32, Asmus Freytag wrote:
There are many characters that are used in professional mathematical
typesetting (division slash being one of them) that need to be narrowly
distinguished from other, roughly similar characters.
Typographic
On 7/10/2012 1:38 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-10, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/10/2012 3:50 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Asmus Freytag, Mon, 09 Jul 2012 19:32:47 -0700:
The European use (this is not limited to Scandinavia)
Thanks. It seems to me that that this tradition is not
Here's my summary of the annotations that we've been discussing so far:
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
* also used to denote multiplication, for that usage 22C5 · DOT OPERATOR
is preferred
U+2052 COMMERCIAL MI
On 7/11/2012 11:02 AM, Eric Muller wrote:
On 7/11/2012 9:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
Unicode is about plain text. TeX is about fine typesetting.
Too narrowly defined: Unicode.
I think Unicode is not just for plain text, but rather concerns itself
with only the lower layer of /any /text sy
On 7/10/2012 5:35 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
The main point is that asserting a general preference in an annotation
for ∶ to express a ratio, as Asmus had in his formulation, is simply
wrong and counterproductive. (We are not going to change the world's
usage from : to ∶ by fiat; and and the glyph
On 7/10/2012 6:13 PM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
Roughly ASCII has become some sort of MarkDown.
Nicely put.
A./
Title: HTML clipboard
Here's my *updated* summary of the annotations that we've been
discussing so far:
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 :
RATIO is preferred in mathematical use
U+00B7 MIDDLE DOT
On 7/12/2012 10:24 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-12 19:31, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I don't see any problem in amending the proposed annotations
U+003A COLON
* also used to denote division or scale, for that usage 2236 : RATIO is
preferred in mathematical use
U+2236 RATIO
* Us
On 7/12/2012 2:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it would not encod
On 7/12/2012 3:10 PM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
If you read any introduction to TeX, it will explain how you use
macros to provide a structured markup. If you were using that
notation, then you would define a suitable macro, say
\def\tetration#1#2{{}^{#2}{#1}} and write $\tetration{y}{x}$. This
On 7/12/2012 2:47 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 12 Jul 2012, at 22:20, Julian Bradfield wrote:
But wanting to do so would be crazy. My mu-nu ligature is, as far as I know,
used only by me (and co-authors who let me do the typesetting), and so if
Unicode has any sanity left, it would not encod
The time to encode this ad-hoc symbol would arrive some time after
others republish your proof *without* choosing a different symbol...at
which point it would have become part of a "convention".
A./
On 7/13/2012 5:20 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
On 2012-07-13, Michael Everson wrote:
On 13 Ju
On 7/13/2012 3:07 AM, Julian Bradfield wrote:
My colleagues in the Edinburgh PEPA group did try to get their pet symbol
encoded (a bowtie where the two triangles overlap somewhat rather than just
touching), but were refused; although that symbol now appears in hundreds of
papers by dozens of a
On 7/13/2012 1:57 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
That document is 164 pages long. I would be interested in examining it
after someone else has done the background work of a first pass at
identifying which characters are already encoded. This is sort of an
emoji/wingdings/webdings scenario, I guess.
sort the symbol list occupies an
interesting territory between a font showing and a character set. The
fact that the macros are individually named at a level accessible to the
end user, pushes it closer to a de-facto character set.
A./
On 13 Jul 2012, at 14:24, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/13
A) treating NUL as ignorable is really deep legacy. Totally no longer
appropriate for modern data.
B) there are many Unicode character codes with leading or trailing or
other NUL bytes, so UTF-16 and UTF-32 cannot be exchanged under the
assumption of "NUL is ignorable"
A./
On 7/13/2012 2:16
On 7/13/2012 2:42 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-13 22:37, David Starner wrote:
Wikipedia says "The Unicode standard recommends against the BOM for
UTF-8." and refers to page 30 of the Unicode Standard, version 6.0,
that says "Use of
On 7/20/2012 8:41 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Looking for an example of "plain text" which is obvious to anybody,
it seems to me that the "Subject" field of e-mails is a good example.
By common convention, certain notational features have been relegated to
styled text. Super and subscript in math
On 7/20/2012 1:34 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-20 20:19, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 7/20/2012 8:41 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
Looking for an example of "plain text" which is obvious to anybody,
it seems to me that the "Subject" field of e-mails is a good example.
On 7/22/2012 7:08 AM, Gary Kilfear wrote:
should we submit a proposal for these Chinese punctuation?
My take is that a proposal, with its requirements for evidence and
samples, it the best way to systematically capture and collect the
information.
Once everything is on the table, UTC will
On 7/25/2012 2:45 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
. One might even argue that the BOM is useful here, too, since it
immediately signals that there is something wrong, and “” is an
encoding error signature, so to say.
+8
A./
On 7/26/2012 3:50 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-07-26 13:04, Andre Schappo kirjoitti:
Not emoticon but …….
I received an email from Email Insider. Email was written as E✉ail
✉ being U+2079
I thought it quite clever
U+2079 is SUPERSCRIPT NINE “⁹”. I suppose you meant U+2709 ENVELOPE
“✉”
On 7/26/2012 4:42 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 7/26/2012 4:20 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
Perhaps I've read too much into
http://www.unicode.org/policies/logo_policy.html . The implication is
that untrue or misleading claims using the word 'Unicode' are
contravening the trademark.
That's mor
On 7/30/2012 6:12 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
But this is good for the power industry and
the hardware producers, is it.
Please, no more conspiracy theories.
nuff said.
A./
On 8/13/2012 12:25 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
Regarding another stray comment in this thread, Michael Everson said:
"The LOZENGE is also found in DOS code page 437."
That is definitely not true. Michael may be misremembering the diamond
from the
set of 4 card suit symbols, which definitely are i
On 8/16/2012 8:55 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
2012-08-16 18:31, Ian Clifton wrote:
Having just been to Norway, and wanting to email my friends all about
it, I came across a curiosity: neither of the combining characters
U+0337, U+0338 seem to work in usually‐reliable Emacs, and indeed
U+00F8 LA
On 8/16/2012 8:31 AM, Ian Clifton wrote:
Having just been to Norway, and wanting to email my friends all about
it, I came across a curiosity: neither of the combining characters
U+0337, U+0338 seem to work in usually‐reliable Emacs, and indeed
U+00F8 LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE doesn’t seem
On 8/19/2012 4:05 PM, Manuel Strehl wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for a data source, that maps countries to scripts used in
them. The target application is a visualization in the context of my
codepoints.net site, namely http://codepoints.net/scripts.
At the moment I've extracted the prefered scrip
A map would be more interesting if you could find a way to split larger
territories, such as the US, Russia, China, India, etc. into some
suitable subdivisions. Notice how the language map for the US shows
non-English languages nicely concentrated along the coast and borders.
A./
Cheers,
On 8/20/2012 11:05 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 20 Aug 2012, at 18:42, Jameson Quinn wrote:
But I'm a newbie here on this list. I brought this issue up here, and there
weren't many non-joke responses. Does that mean I should give up? Or if not,
what should I do next?
I don't think we should
On 8/22/2012 11:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 22 Aug 2012, at 18:05, Jameson Quinn wrote:
I understand that from a professional Mayanist perspective, having glyphs for
just the numbers without even the dates or any of the rest isn't attractive.
And I also understand that in real petroglyph
I think Jameson makes a case that there is a part of Mayan that doesn't
fit the standard model of an ancient script that is being encoded
(merely) to further the work of specialists working on it.
The use he claims that the digits receive in elementary school education
makes these separate fro
On 8/23/2012 3:04 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2012/8/23 Asmus Freytag <mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com>>
I think it would be highly instructive if Jameson were able to
make a proposal purely based on modern use of these digits, with
the proper citations and examples. In my
On 8/23/2012 2:48 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
/>>> Because we aren't ready to do it without doing it in the context
of the whole script. /
/>> /
/>> Why not? Can you give some indication of what you're afraid of,
some scenario of how we could possibly >later regret having included
the basic dig
On 8/23/2012 3:27 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:40, Asmus Freytag wrote:
I think Jameson makes a case that there is a part of Mayan that doesn't fit the
standard model of an ancient script that is being encoded (merely) to further
the work of specialists working
On 8/23/2012 3:58 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
We must encode Mayan properly.
We must encode what people are currently using; stuff that no one is
actually setting in type is of lesser interest. Some script that
scholars don't entirely unders
On 8/23/2012 3:19 PM, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Rick McGowan wrote:
In my opinion, the UTC would be irresponsible to approve the encoding for a
set of digits for a complicated system like Mayan without even having a
preliminary script proposal on record; and without
On 8/23/2012 4:13 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 23 Aug 2012, at 23:58, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
We must encode Mayan properly.
We must encode what people are currently using; stuff that no one is actually
setting in type is of lesser inter
On 8/23/2012 5:52 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2012/8/23 Asmus Freytag <mailto:asm...@ix.netcom.com>>
... there's apparently widespread use of just the digit system,
in, presumably (waiting for the documented details here) a modern,
streamlined base-19 system.
It
On 8/23/2012 6:57 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 24 Aug 2012, at 00:45, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On 08/23/2012 06:27 PM, Michael Everson wrote:
They're already using it without Unicode, so why not let them keep doing what
they are doing until we are ready to do a proper job.
That's a chicken-a
I see simple continuation of pre-judging and speculation here.
The proper thing is to wait for a proposal to come in, look at the
evidence presented, and then, and only then, decide whether there are
functional and/or usage differences that require or suggest certain
encoding actions.
A./
On 9/7/2012 8:12 AM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Julian Bradfield
wrote:
On 2012-09-04, Leo Broukhis wrote:
My question is about the symbol before the name Уот. Has anyone seen
it before? Is it a NE arrow in a square or a spade? What does it mean?
Might it simply be a
On 9/7/2012 12:39 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
Thank you; I haven't seen that particular dingbat used before and
thought that it might have an established meaning, e.g. like in
dictionaries where various symbols separate idiomatic (◊) or erroneous
(¶) uses.
Dictionaries have all sorts of interesting
On 9/7/2012 2:24 PM, Stephan Stiller wrote:
Thank you; I haven't seen that particular dingbat used before and
thought that it might have an established meaning, e.g. like in
dictionaries where various symbols separate idiomatic (◊) or erroneous
(¶) uses.
Dictionaries have all sorts of interest
On 9/21/2012 4:04 AM, David Starner wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:04 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 09:56, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
FYI: Finland has decided to support the encoding of Mayan numerals if the
question comes up in SC2.
Why? Does Finland think that it makes s
On 9/21/2012 6:36 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
On 21 Sep 2012, at 12:04, David Starner wrote:
Why? Does Finland think that it makes sense to encode a tiny subset of a
complex writing system, even though the complexities of that writing system in
terms of character encoding have not been fully e
On 10/9/2012 1:17 PM, Stephan Stiller wrote:
Ideal would be an editor that gives me previews in an easy-to-use
encoding selection menu that in addition highlights fully or almost-
compatible encodings, highlights (after loading) positions in the file
that don't conform to the requested encoding
On 10/9/2012 10:47 PM, Stephan Stiller wrote:
You very nearly never know which version of a character set a sender
or receiver uses or requires, and even for documents, the best you
can tell is which version(s) (plural) of a given character set a text
can be encoded in. You can't tell whether
How does the old saying go "Be liberal in what you accept, be
conservative in what you emit".
In that sense, there's a place for a much wider array of input
encodings, coupled with a gentle insistence on not letting the user save
things in outdated formats.
In terms of which input sets are "
Metadata that is separate from the data has a way of being disassociated
from it. Annoying, but a fact of life. This can be as simple as file
creation dates not being preserved on copy.
Metadata that is contained in the same file as the data, has a way of
being incorrect. Look no further than
On 10/21/2012 4:09 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Unless there's a way to rebuild the metadata unambiguously or to enforce
>that it is complete and correct, it's very hard to rely on it for any
>particular purpose.
Enforcing that the metadata is correct is perfectly possible, at least
to ensure that
On 10/29/2012 12:48 PM, Szelp, A. Sz. wrote:
These look as if they were actually ligatures.
(typo)graphically a number of forms may be "ligatures".
For text encoding, it would be important to understand whether such
fused forms are used interchangeable with forms that are not fused - and
in
401 - 500 of 1363 matches
Mail list logo
