Re: Chromatic font research
Michael Everson wrote as follows. I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph model many times because it's clear that you want to use character encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have nothing to do with character encoding. I have now had the opportunity to study the document. In Annex B Characters there is the following definition for a character. quote A member of a set of elements used for the organisation, control, and representation of data. end quote There is then mention of data characters and control characters, including the use of the word usually. It seems to me from that definition that codes for 36 POINT and GREEN and so on are well within that definition. Indeed, that definition shows that codes such as 36 POINT and GREEN are but on the sea shore as far as goes what a character could be used to represent. Consider for example a code point for LET THERE BE A TRIANGLE and a code point for LET THERE BE A QUADRILATERAL and a code point for LET THE NEXT CLOCKWISE VERTEX BE REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING SYMBOL (where any Unicode character can then be used to represent that vertex in that item) and so on. Codes such as JOIN THE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED VERTICES REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING TWO SYMBOLS and so on could be defined, thus allowing a computer to produce a picture and also have a data structure which has knowledge of the mathematical structure of the picture. It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit of that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner of items for human and computer communication. The potential uses for pure mathematics, artificial intelligence and psychology are enormous. Uses for computer aided design are also possible. William Overington 27 June 2002
Re: Chromatic font research
Daniel Yacob wrote as follows. In the ethiopic case it is 1362 (four dots like ::) interlaced with 5 red dots in the sign of the cross that is the most common. This is 9 dots altogether and at a glance looks like a colorful paragraph separator. Any punctuation or numeral may receive extra flourishes of red (1364 receives red strokes about as often), there is no semantic impact on the character. It is a practice relegated by and large to religious works, scribes themselves have told me that they have no rhyme nor reason for why they've made one character or word red in one sentence and not the next -save for possible subliminal divine inspiration at that particular instant :) The capability to the same electronically would be well received. In the handwritten form, could you please say whether the adding of the red increases the width of the area needed to represent the character? Also, when handwritten, does the scribe have a black pen in one hand and a red pen in the other so that colouring takes place on a character by character basis as writing proceeds, or does the scribe put down one pen and pick up another, and, if so, is that on a character by character basis or is that on the basis of producing a number of characters in black and then adding the red afterwards. This would seem to be possibly significant due to the possible need to allow for the greater width of the area used for a character that is later to receive red flourishes. William Overington 27 June 2002
RE: Chromatic font research
Michael Everson wrote: Marco said: MC However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element: MC signs with the same design can mean different things if painted in MC different colors. Has it? Reference? The best I can come up with from my private library is a single paragraph on a book about the history of writing in general (Storia universale della scrittura by Giorgio R. Cardona, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milano 1986, chapter XII Le scritture del continente americano, 2 Le scritture mesoamericane, Area azteca e olmeca, page 257): Gli Aztechi attribuivano una grande importanza all'opposizione tra i vari colori: i colori avevano per loro un significato simbolico ben preciso e, come si è accertato solo in tempi molto recenti, erano usati normalmente nelle rappresentazioni tridimensionali; era per esempio colorato il tante volte riprodotto disco del calendario messicano, ora nel Museo Nazionale di Antropologia di Città del Messico. Coerentemente, anche nei logogrammi aztechi il colore costituiva un tratto significativo. (my translation: Aztecs assigned great importance to color oppositions: colors had for them a well defined symbolic meaning and, as was proved very recently, colors were normally employed in three-dimensional representations; for instance, color was used in the often-reproduced Mexican calendar disc, now at the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City. Consistently, color was a meaningful feature also in Aztec logographs.) I also found a mention about this on the web (Aztec Writing http://www.azteca.net/aztec/nahuatl/writing.html), although I don't know how reliable the site is: Color was also important. The signs for grass, canes, and rushes look very much the same in black and white, but in color there could be no mistake: in the Codex Mendoza grass is yellow, canes are blue, rushes green. A ruler could be recognized at once from the shape of his diadem and from its color, turquoise, which was reserved for royal use. _ Marco
Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429. I also see that the ISO 8859-1 mapping published on unicode.org maps these characters into the Unicode characters with the same code points. I now see that ISO 8859-1 actually says The shaded positions [0x00-0x1f og 0x7f-0x9f] correspond to bit combinations that do not represent graphic characters. Their use is outside the scope of ISO 8859; it is specifies in other International Standards, for example ISO 646 or ISO 6429. and I find other sources which say that ISO 8859 does not define any control characters at all, and that users of it must themselves choose a set of characters to use in this range. I find this a little confusing and would like to know whether there really is a fixed, normative interpretation of this character range. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian URL: http://www.ontopia.net ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TCURL: http://www.garshol.priv.no
Re: Chromatic font research
At 07:57 +0100 2002-06-27, William Overington wrote: Michael Everson wrote as follows. I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph model many times because it's clear that you want to use character encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have nothing to do with character encoding. I have now had the opportunity to study the document. That was quick. Methinks it was overquick. In Annex B Characters there is the following definition for a character. quote A member of a set of elements used for the organisation, control, and representation of data. end quote There is then mention of data characters and control characters, including the use of the word usually. It seems to me from that definition that codes for 36 POINT and GREEN and so on are well within that definition. Sorry, William, but you just aren't getting it. Indeed, that definition shows that codes such as 36 POINT and GREEN are but on the sea shore as far as goes what a character could be used to represent. Green and 36-point are markup attibutes to be applied to real characters. Please go back and try again. Our terminology is not full of portmanteau words you can make mean whatever *you* like. This is a game for which the rules have been developed with some rigour over the years, and we try not to break them. We know that they have been broken in the past. And we also know how to apply them and we've been trying to tell you that you've been coming up with ideas that are so far afield as to boggle the mind. Consider for example a code point for LET THERE BE A TRIANGLE and a code point for LET THERE BE A QUADRILATERAL and a code point for LET THE NEXT CLOCKWISE VERTEX BE REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING SYMBOL (where any Unicode character can then be used to represent that vertex in that item) and so on. Codes such as JOIN THE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED VERTICES REPRESENTED BY THE FOLLOWING TWO SYMBOLS and so on could be defined, thus allowing a computer to produce a picture and also have a data structure which has knowledge of the mathematical structure of the picture. William. This is ***NOT*** character encoding. It may be something that you can do with a computer. That does not mean it has anything to do with character encoding, fonts, or the Unicode Standard. It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit of that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner of items for human and computer communication. The potential uses for pure mathematics, artificial intelligence and psychology are enormous. Uses for computer aided design are also possible. Don't even go there, William. This is NOT what character encoding is for. Go back and read the TR again. And again. And again. Then go read the Unicode Standard again. And again. And again. Then get a book on writing systems. Not on semasiology or philosophy of font design or any other such herring. You apparently have a lot of work to do to get onto the same page as the rest of us are. This is not an ad hominem attack. It is just a plea. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Chromatic font research
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, John Cowan wrote: I looked at the image (less than ideal) at http://www.fortknoxxjewelry.com/store/myname/images/1177_l.jpg and fed it through the Gimp to strip out color information (specifically, Image/Colors/Desaturate followed by Image/Colors/Threshold, taking the 127 default, which leaves stark black and white). The point was, there are a lot more. You can start with http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/other/flaint.htm . And that is only for the international flags. There are lots of national and proprietary ones, too, if I'm not entirely mistaken. Unify the whole set and you'll end up with a number of distinct symbols with no difference besides color. In any event, this is plainly a letter-by-letter cipher for the basic Latin alphabet (A-Z), and the fact that single letters or combinations may be used as codes for cross-linguistic concepts is of no more interest to a character encoding standard than that ABALC can mean Abandon all claims in any of various natural languages. To a degree, yes. But the line is hardly clear-cut. By the same token, we might as well deprecate many of the alphabets in Unicode as they can be considered a cipher of IPA. The point is, a widely used cipher does constitute a new alphabet. (We might get back into the Klingon debate, here. I'd rather refrain.) Again, I'm not saying signalling flags should be coded. Neither am I disputing the fact that such signalling systems are subordinate to conventional alphabets. I'm not even saying a single set of such flags couldn't be validly coded in monochrome. (Any single set of signalling flags is usually designed to be read in adverse lighting conditions where color is poorly perceived. It is not an accident you found little trouble distinguishing the flags in monochrome.) What I'm suggesting, instead, is that in certain contexts where printing/wrinting technology hasn't presented an obstacle, meaning can indeed have been assigned to colors in what is basically running text. This makes me think that the monochromatic nature of characters is more a technological necessity than an inherent part of the definition of a character. If this is the case, it wouldn't be a bad idea to prepare for the inclusion of colored glyphs in Unicode, should the need arise, and to be careful not to dismiss coloring as a potential primary feature of new character when considering coding proposals in the future. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Re: Chromatic font research
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure, pictures have colour, but pictures are not characters. Not even pictures of things that represent characters. Depends on what you consider a character. In my inexpert opinion, any sign which can be used in a way reminiscent of a character (i.e. can be used to encode an abstract concept, is used as a part of a wider, orderly system of similar signs to encode information, and so on) *is* a character. I mean, if it walks like a duck... The fact that people didn't happen to have photographically accurate megacolor printers when they first came up with the idea of writing is a historical detail which I cannot see having anything to do with the definition of a character, per se. We could invent a system that uses 4 x 4 matrices of squares each in one of 16 colours with each configuration representing a different character from a repertoire of up to 256 characters. Should these representations of characters be themselves encoded as characters? No, IMO. I'm not quite sure about this, either. Precisely such a scheme is currently used to encode certain high capacity 2D barcodes. IMO, what we're dealing with, here, are indeed characters. Much like the many purely technical symbols already encoded, Braille, Dingbats, bullets and certain other kinds of punctuation, arrows, control pictures, character recognition and block drawing symbols, block elements, geometric shapes, the non-Han symbols used in CJK text, musical symbols and tags. In fact, many of those seem far less like characters than discrete barcode symbols used to encode alphanumeric information -- many of the symbols already encoded are not used as part of an orderly writing system, at all, but in isolation. I think what counts is use in interchange. If there is a wide-spread need to interchange data containing a specific symbol it should be standardized and encoded in Unicode regardless of its genesis or similarity to older, more conventional characters. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED], tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote: This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429. I also see that the ISO 8859-1 mapping published on unicode.org maps these characters into the Unicode characters with the same code points. I now see that ISO 8859-1 actually says The shaded positions [0x00-0x1f og 0x7f-0x9f] correspond to bit combinations that do not represent graphic characters. Their use is outside the scope of ISO 8859; it is specifies in other International Standards, for example ISO 646 or ISO 6429. and I find other sources which say that ISO 8859 does not define any control characters at all, and that users of it must themselves choose a set of characters to use in this range. I find this a little confusing and would like to know whether there really is a fixed, normative interpretation of this character range. What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series. Kind regards keld
Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
Stefan Persson wrote: From: Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or 127 ASCII code points? Or ca. 9000 JIS code points? They are already encoded, aren't they? No, they aren't. Unicode encodes the same characters encoded by ASCII (at the same code points) and the same characters encoded by JIS (at different code points), but it does NOT(*) include the ASCII or JIS code points themselves. That would be like assigning a code to represent a code which represents a character. (*: Actually, 33 ASCII code points are encoded in range U+2400..U+2422, to allow visible symbols for ASCII control codes). Encoding the navy's flag alphabet or the Morse code would be exactly doing this: assigning a code to a code which represents a letter. But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not used to encode Braille in Unicode, but rather to encode commands to be sent to Braille printers (embossers, actually). _ Marco
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
Lars Marius Garshol scripsit: This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429. It would be more precise to say that insofar as any C1 characters are used at all, they are most often given the interpretation mandated by ISO 6429. Strictly speaking, the ISO 8859 series does not specify any C0 or C1 characters. I also see that the ISO 8859-1 mapping published on unicode.org maps these characters into the Unicode characters with the same code points. That mapping is not normative. The only normative mappings in Unicode are between ideographic characters and the source character sets specified in the Standard. (This whole thing, or at least the last point, would be a fit entry for the FAQ, I think.) -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
RE: Chromatic font research
I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
Marco said:
MC However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
MC signs with the same design can mean different things if
painted in
MC different colors.
Has it? Reference?
The best I can come up with from my private library is a
single paragraph on
a book about the history of writing in general (Storia
universale della
scrittura by Giorgio R. Cardona, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore,
Milano 1986,
chapter XII Le scritture del continente americano, 2 Le scritture
mesoamericane, Area azteca e olmeca, page 257):
I noticed only now that this book also has a specific chapter about color
(II-VII La scrittura colorata, pages 85-87). The chapter refers how color
was and is applied to writing by different cultures. Most of these usages
involve coloring whole glyphs or the background: what we moderns would call
markup.
However, at the very end of the chapter, the author deals again with
Meso-American writing system, stating more clearly that color was a
structural element, which could even form minimal pairs:
L'uso più cospicuo del simbolismo dei colori in un sistema grafico
è dato dai manoscritti mesoamericani; le figurazioni e i glifi hanno le
varie parti colorate con colori precisi, legati a un simbolismo che in parte
conosciamo e che rimanda al pantheon delle divinità, alla divisione dello
spazio, agli elementi componenti del cosmo. Anche le rappresentazioni a
bassorilievo erano in realtà colorate, benché [ciò] si possa ricostruire
solo congetturalmente. Questi colori erano decifrati esattamente come
qualsiasi [altra] componente della scrittura, e in certi casi il colore è
l'unico determinante in glifi per il resto uguali.
(my translation: The most important use of color symbolism in a
graphical system is found in the Meso-American manuscripts; the pictures and
the glyphs have their various parts colored with well-defined colors, bound
to a symbolism that we know in part, and which refers to the deities
pantheon, to the subdivision of space, to the elements composing the world.
Actually, also the bass-relief representation were colored, although [this]
can only be reconstructed by guesswork. These colors were deciphered exactly
like any [other] component of the writing system, and in some cases color
was the only difference {determinant} in glyphs otherwise identical.
_ Marco
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series. 6249 isn't the character-set definition - it's the control-sequences. 8859 corresponds to character-set definitions. (I assume that's what you meant to say, but did not). -- T.E.Dickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote: This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429. [snip] I now see that ISO 8859-1 actually says The shaded positions [0x00-0x1f og 0x7f-0x9f] correspond to bit combinations that do not represent graphic characters. Their use is outside the scope of ISO 8859; it is specifies in other International Standards, for example ISO 646 or ISO 6429. [snip] I find this a little confusing and would like to know whether there really is a fixed, normative interpretation of this character range. What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series. Kind regards keld Thursday, June 27, 2002 There is also ISO 6630 Additional Control Functions for Bibliographic Use. It defines 13 control codes which in 8 bit environments are in the 80 to 9F range. I do not know how widely they are used. Regards, Jim Agenbroad ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) It is not true that people stop pursuing their dreams because they grow old, they grow old because they stop pursuing their dreams. Adapted from a letter by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. The above are purely personal opinions, not necessarily the official views of any government or any agency of any. Addresses: Office: Phone: 202 707-9612; Fax: 202 707-0955; US mail: I.T.S. Sys.Dev.Gp.4, Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. SE, Washington, D.C. 20540-9334 U.S.A. Home: Phone: 301 946-7326; US mail: Box 291, Garrett Park, MD 20896.
Re: Chromatic font research
On 06/27/2002 01:57:01 AM William Overington wrote: It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit of that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner of items for human and computer communication. It may so seem to you, but this definitely is *not* in the spirit of that definition. - Peter --- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 08:03:05AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series. 6249 isn't the character-set definition - it's the control-sequences. 8859 corresponds to character-set definitions. (I assume that's what you meant to say, but did not). 6429 defines both control sequences and control characters. keld
Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
Marco Cimarosti marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it wrote: But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not used to encode Braille in Unicode, but rather to encode commands to be sent to Braille printers (embossers, actually). I think the reason the Braille block is legitimate, and doesn't fall into the codes-for-codes trap you described, is that it is a flexible cipher rather than a fixed one. The same Braille symbol can stand for different letters depending on which script, or even which alphabet within the same script, it is used to represent. And then there's Grade 2 Braille, which completely breaks the simple cipher model. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
Doug Ewell scripsit: And then there's Grade 2 Braille, which completely breaks the simple cipher model. Not really: it is just enciphered code. Similarly, in the flag code we can encode the phrase I require a pilot as G, or I am in distress as NC, and then encipher these (one-to-one) using the flags for those letters. The code G, BTW, also represents I am hauling nets. Again, this is like encoding Abandon all claims as ABALC, and then enciphering this using International Morse or Baudot, as was done in cable days. The reason for Unicoding Braille was practical, not theoretical. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research))
Interestingly, once you have chromatic capabilities, you can encode Braille as a single character with all dots, and apply coloring, to each dot as needed, of the background color to eliminate dots, and foreground color(s) to present them, to make all 256 combinations. For that matter, you can encode worst-case-composed characters (a base letter plus all possible combining characters) as single characters and then apply background/foreground coloring to eliminate the marks you don't want, even reducing to just the base character. Hmm. Actually you can include all the possible base characters into one character as well, and only color the one you want. Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding, UniCharacter!. Just color what you need. OK, who's with me in forming a consortium! I gotta call Crayola. ;-) Doug Ewell wrote: Marco Cimarosti marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it wrote: But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not used to encode Braille in Unicode, but rather to encode commands to be sent to Braille printers (embossers, actually). -- - Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCrafthttp://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -
Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
- Original Message - From: Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Stefan Persson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Sampo Syreeni' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:58 PM Subject: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research) Stefan Persson wrote: From: Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or 127 ASCII code points? Or ca. 9000 JIS code points? They are already encoded, aren't they? No, they aren't. Unicode encodes the same characters encoded by ASCII (at the same code points) and the same characters encoded by JIS (at different code points), but it does NOT(*) include the ASCII or JIS code points themselves. That would be like assigning a code to represent a code which represents a character. (*: Actually, 33 ASCII code points are encoded in range U+2400..U+2422, to allow visible symbols for ASCII control codes). I see. How do I propose millions of Unicode code points for inclusion in the stantard? ;-) Stefan _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research))
Tex wrote: Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding, UniCharacter!. Just color what you need. Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds of problems. We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again, because users would have all the tools they need to express whatever they wanted just by coloring in the bits! And nobody would have any problems decoding it! The only question that remains is, how much resolution is enough? I think if we have 512x512 bytes for 256x256 resolution at 16-bits/pixel for color, that ought to be enough resolution to satisfy anyone. So each character would only require 2,097,152 bits. With all the fancy compression schemes we could cook up, that shouldn't pose any difficulty at all. And it really ought to appeal to the RAM manufacturers... Speaking of compression schemes, we could pick a space of say 32 bits and allow people to register the characters they like by NUMBER (!), and we could keep a whole technical committee engrossed for decades in deciding which proposed pictures were really the same and thus have already been registered, and numbering things, then we could transmit information compactly by using the catalog numbers instead of the pictures. That might be helpful to users, I'm not sure... Rick
RE: Chromatic font research
-Original Message- From: William Overington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit of that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner of items for human and computer communication. Given the frequency that these types of issues come up, I wonder if it would be useful to list a few examples in the FAQ of what would -not- be considered for inclusion in future releases of the standard? For example, I'm guessing that my idea for encoding furniture icons and room positioning indicators so that I could create floor layouts using a text editor, would probably not be accepted. (No doubt because corporate giants are trying to prevent the incredible financial success I would realize if they allowed it.) Perhaps if there were a few (more?) places on the site which explained what Unicode is NOT, it would be easier for people to realize they should build an app to accomplish their goal instead. Examples of innappropriate submissions and explanations of why might help reduce the problem. (Apologies if such a thing does exist on the site... my poking around in the FAQ and the Submitting Proposals page didn't find it.) Suzanne Topping BizWonk Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
Doug Ewell wrote: I think the reason the Braille block is legitimate, and doesn't fall into the codes-for-codes trap you described, is that it is a flexible cipher rather than a fixed one. The same Braille symbol can stand for different letters depending on which script, or even which alphabet within the same script, it is used to represent. And then there's Grade 2 Braille, which completely breaks the simple cipher model. I stand corrected. _ Marco
Re: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research))
Good point about resolution. I just realized an even bigger problem- steganography. Embedding data in pictures. By changing the colors associated with a character string, someone could spell out a completely different message. My Hello world could be changed to Bite me. It might not even be intentional, could be just a bad color gun in a monitor. Although, it would certainly be an aid to translation, (one set of message strings fits all!) there is too much of a security risk. Never mind. ;-) (Maybe the heat is getting to me.) Rick McGowan wrote: Tex wrote: Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding, UniCharacter!. Just color what you need. Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds of problems. We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again, because users would have all the tools they need to express whatever they wanted just by coloring in the bits! And nobody would have any problems decoding it! The only question that remains is, how much resolution is enough? I think if we have 512x512 bytes for 256x256 resolution at 16-bits/pixel for color, that ought to be enough resolution to satisfy anyone. So each character would only require 2,097,152 bits. With all the fancy compression schemes we could cook up, that shouldn't pose any difficulty at all. And it really ought to appeal to the RAM manufacturers... Speaking of compression schemes, we could pick a space of say 32 bits and allow people to register the characters they like by NUMBER (!), and we could keep a whole technical committee engrossed for decades in deciding which proposed pictures were really the same and thus have already been registered, and numbering things, then we could transmit information compactly by using the catalog numbers instead of the pictures. That might be helpful to users, I'm not sure... Rick -- - Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com XenCrafthttp://www.XenCraft.com Making e-Business Work Around the World -
RE: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
Stefan Persson wrote: I see. How do I propose millions of Unicode code points for inclusion in the stantard? ;-) Just put them in the PUA, publish them, and wait: sooner or later, they'll get promoted. ;-} _ Marco
RE: How common are points in modern Hebrew?
Pointed Hebrew is used in dictionaries and books for learners and young children. Also the Hebrew Bible is generally pointed and cantillated. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Re: Characters 0x80 - 0x9F in ISO 8859-1
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:54:00PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:43:30PM +0200, Keld J?rn Simonsen wrote: On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 08:03:05AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote: What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series. 6249 isn't the character-set definition - it's the control-sequences. 8859 corresponds to character-set definitions. (I assume that's what you meant to say, but did not). 6429 defines both control sequences and control characters. only incidentally - the focus of the document (the other 98% by page count) is devoted to control sequences. Agreeg, but we are looking for the source for control characters, and then 6429 is the one altho it is not the meat of that standard. my point: a more accurate answer to his question would have been to point out 2022. Which only specifies very few control characters? Nah, 6429 is the answer, if these codes are used at all, and 10646 also refers 6429. Kind regards keld
RE: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research))
Folks, WAIT A BIT. This method, as tempting as it is, would make all text not accessible for people with visual disabilities. And, as you all know, Section 508 requires that any electronic information from the government (e.g. web site) must be accessible to people with disabilities. Here goes a great idea unless we find an accessible way to display colors for the blind ! Assistive Technologies companies - here is your challenge !!! Arnold -Original Message- From: Rick McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)) Tex wrote: Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding, UniCharacter!. Just color what you need. Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds of problems. We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again, because users would have all the tools they need to express whatever they wanted just by coloring in the bits! And nobody would have any problems decoding it! The only question that remains is, how much resolution is enough? I think if we have 512x512 bytes for 256x256 resolution at 16-bits/pixel for color, that ought to be enough resolution to satisfy anyone. So each character would only require 2,097,152 bits. With all the fancy compression schemes we could cook up, that shouldn't pose any difficulty at all. And it really ought to appeal to the RAM manufacturers... Speaking of compression schemes, we could pick a space of say 32 bits and allow people to register the characters they like by NUMBER (!), and we could keep a whole technical committee engrossed for decades in deciding which proposed pictures were really the same and thus have already been registered, and numbering things, then we could transmit information compactly by using the catalog numbers instead of the pictures. That might be helpful to users, I'm not sure... Rick
Re: Chromatic font research
Sampo Syreeni recently said: National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't. They stand for characters and I believe in some variations for entire well-known concepts. They are utilized in a way we would expect characters to be. I don't think the entire collection of flags used around the world coincides neatly enough with an already encoded script to be considered pure glyph variants. And colors are certainly meaningful in this context. (I can't fathom why anyone would want to encode those, though. Anything you can do with flags you can do with ordinary characters, only more efficiently. However, this could serve as an example of a script which relies on color as an essential feature.) I'd agree that you wouldn't want to encode them, but you might want to make a font where each signaling flag is in the place of its corresponding character. That would be a use for chromatic fonts. The only other use that springs to mind is Egyptian hieroglyphics which have a colouring scheme when written in full colour. (Of course colour isn't *required* when reading them, it is just an aid that helps recognition.) As someone (Doug?) pointed out a little while back on another thread, fonts are (mis)used to hold collections of graphics conveniently. I imagine that if chromatic fonts were available this kind of usage would grow. It would also allow things like illuminated capitals to be put in a font rather than suplied as a collection of graphics files. Tim -- Tim Partridge. Any opinions expressed are mine only and not those of my employer
Re: Chromatic font research
In the handwritten form, could you please say whether the adding of the red increases the width of the area needed to represent the character? yes, absolutely, at least by the width of two dots. Also, when handwritten, does the scribe have a black pen in one hand and a red pen in the other so that colouring takes place on a character by character basis as writing proceeds, or does the scribe put down one pen and pick up another, and, if so, is that on a character by character basis or is that on the basis of producing a number of characters in black and then adding the red afterwards. This would seem to be possibly significant due to the possible need to allow for the greater width of the area used for a character that is later to receive red flourishes. my oh my, these are wonderfully interesting questions :) I would think the use of tools would be highly sensitive to the experience, training, and learned habits of the writer. I haven't witnessed a great enough number to sensibly say what a norm would be. I certainly haven't seen a person hold two pens at once though. The scribes I've seen (maybe 4 I watched closely) were pragmatic in their writing, when a red word occurred they would put down the black brush and pick up the red and write the word. While the utensil was still in hand they would go back and add red dots or strokes where they thought it was needed. If no red words occurred (usually one every sentence or two depending upon the material) they would continue writing in black until the end of a sentence or section and stop there to change pens to go back and update punctuation or tonal marks. Again, I wouldn't draw any significant conclusions from this. I don't believe extra space is considered for adding red marks later, the red is allowed to bleed over the black. Trying to reproduce the practice with fonts though I have used an enlarged version of 1362 because the result looked much clearer. The original intention was lost when keeping the original proportions. My thought at the time was that it was just a natural adjustment that one makes when going from ink and paper to computer typography, the goal being that we try to improve upon what the hand can do without losing the essence of it. /Daniel
