(no subject)
To Unicode.org In connection with the discussion about hexadecimal characters, one might find of interest my solution to the problem. As background, I developed a code for the unique identification of all recorded knowledge and information and proposed a universal system at a conference in Tokyo in 1967. Since then, my colleagues and I have been waiting for technology to develop to the stage that would make a universal information access system an essential component of a Global Information Infrastructure. The technology is now here in bandwidth, processing speed and power, and cost of storage. Our alphanumeric code in a structured format has been supplemented with a 64-bt unique identifier for machine interaction also in a structured format. The standard keyboard would be replaced by one with 20 additional special function keys. Sixteen of these keys would have 16 color coded dots representing the hexadecimal coding. When the input is shifted to the universal code, the first two keys entered would automatically represent a Unicode character. The first 16 bits of the 17th bit field would represent the hexadecimal characters. The remaining 64-bits would identify devices, subject terms and phrases, proper names, geographic segments, documents and items in the system. The system is designed to handle both public and private information. Howard J. Hilton, Ph.D.
Re: Hexadecimal
On 16/08/2003 19:07, Ted Hopp wrote: 1, A, But I am not suggesting that this problem is sufficiently serious to justify encoding a new set of hex digits. I believe this displays correctly if the base directionality of the lines is RTL. (Evidently, none of this software tries to guess base directionality using the first strongly directional character of the line.) I'm sending this email as an RTL document, and it corrects the comma problem on my screen. Ted P.S. Of course, there are few other problems for the LTR stuff (like where the punctuation ends up at the end of the line). Ted Hopp, Ph.D. ZigZag, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-301-990-7453 newSLATE is your personal learning workspace ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/ Thanks. And it corrects it on mine. I'm not sure if this means there is no problem (cf. Trevor's problem on the Hebrew Computing list). But I don't know how to make my replies do the same. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Handwritten EURO sign (off topic?)
On 16/08/2003 21:51, Philippe Verdy wrote: Note that USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand are members, even if they often can use legally or most usually the British system (miles, weight pounds, gallons, degrees Fahrenheit...) USA and UK do use this alternative system, except that the US gallon is different from the British one (exactly 20% smaller I think), but Australia and New Zealand don't. I saw no sign of any of these measurements in either of the latter countries, except for a few very old signs using miles. -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Handwritten EURO sign (off topic?)
Peter Kirk scripsit: USA and UK do use this alternative system, except that the US gallon is different from the British one (exactly 20% smaller I think), For the record, it's true that the Imperial gallon has 20 fluid ounces and the Fred Flintstone gallon only 16, *but* it's also true that U.S. fluid ounces are about 4% bigger than Imperial ones. So in fact a U.S. gallon is about 83% of an Imperial one. Quarts and pints are corresponding. -- There is no real going back. Though I John Cowan may come to the Shire, it will not seem [EMAIL PROTECTED] the same; for I shall not be the same. http://www.reutershealth.com I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and a long burden. Where shall I find rest? --Frodo
Re: Handwritten EURO sign (off topic?)
John Cowan remarked... Of course it's the *pint* (8 pints to a gallon) that is 16 or 20 fluid ounces. Which explains to me why a pint of bitter in England seems quite so enormous... well for a small Yank... ;-) Rick
Re: Handwritten EURO sign (off topic?)
At 18:01 -0400 2003-08-17, John Cowan wrote: Yup. Hence also the Brit's complaint about the metric system: a liter of beer is too much, half a liter isn't enough, but a pint, ah, that's just right. The Imperial pint is .57 liters, whereas the Flintstone one is only .47 liters. A half-litre can of Guinness fits perfectly into the standard Irish pint glass. I mean perfectly. I just poured one. :-) -- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Re: Handwritten EURO sign (off topic?)
On 17/08/2003 15:16, Michael Everson wrote: At 18:01 -0400 2003-08-17, John Cowan wrote: Yup. Hence also the Brit's complaint about the metric system: a liter of beer is too much, half a liter isn't enough, but a pint, ah, that's just right. The Imperial pint is .57 liters, whereas the Flintstone one is only .47 liters. A half-litre can of Guinness fits perfectly into the standard Irish pint glass. I mean perfectly. I just poured one. :-) Hence this Brit's complaint also about Irish beer. Lots of froth, lots to chew on as well, but not much to drink! ;-) -- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta)
There are also beta collation charts in: http://www.unicode.org/charts/collation/beta/ Mark __ http://www.macchiato.com Eppur si muove - Original Message - From: Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 19:27 Subject: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce availability of the beta Default Unicode Collation Element Table for UCA 4.0. Feedback is invited. The primary goal of this release is to synchronize the repertoire of strings for collation (sorting) with the repertoire of Unicode 4.0. For future versions of the Unicode Standard that add characters, there will also be versions of the UCA tables with synchronized repertoire. A small number of additional changes have been made for consistency in treatment of new and old characters; however, other changes await working with SC22/WG2 so that future versions of ISO 14651 and UCA can be synchronized. The relevant data file is found here: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/allkeys-4.0.0d1.txt Please also look at the corresponding proposed update version of Unicode Technical Standard #10, The Unicode Collation Algorithm: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-10.html Due to production difficulties, the beta period for this is quite short; comments for this version must be submitted by end of day, August 26, 2003. However, comments directed to the next version can be submitted after this date. Please submit feedback with the reporting form at: http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html Regards, Rick McGowan
Re: [indic] Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta)
These collation tables have one and only one of the following two problems: A) If these are intended to be language-specific tailorings then a strong warning about the linguistic inapplicabilty needs to be added, since the data is actually incorrect for the use of most of these scripts. B) If these tables are just intended to be another view of the default table, outlining the data by script, then this information should be more prominently explained. I suspect that the issue is the one outlined in (B) meaning it is just better explaining what the data is meant to be, but I have had many customers claim to me that Unicode does not understand their language/script because they assumed that the issue was as outlined in (A). Assuming that it is (B), this problem is unfortunately exacerbated by the many times that the language name == the script name (e.g. in Tamil, Bengali, and many others). Having the items on the left called out at the top as SCRIPTS rather than LANGUAGES would probably help with that issue (though some people do not distinguish even when the difference is explained clearly). Of course there is the issue that the UTS does not really seem reference this page, but maybe there is a reference somewhere else that is a bit more of a challenge to find. :-) MichKa - Original Message - From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 5:37 PM Subject: [indic] Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) There are also beta collation charts in: http://www.unicode.org/charts/collation/beta/ Mark __ http://www.macchiato.com Eppur si muove - Original Message - From: Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 19:27 Subject: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce availability of the beta Default Unicode Collation Element Table for UCA 4.0. Feedback is invited. The primary goal of this release is to synchronize the repertoire of strings for collation (sorting) with the repertoire of Unicode 4.0. For future versions of the Unicode Standard that add characters, there will also be versions of the UCA tables with synchronized repertoire. A small number of additional changes have been made for consistency in treatment of new and old characters; however, other changes await working with SC22/WG2 so that future versions of ISO 14651 and UCA can be synchronized. The relevant data file is found here: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/allkeys-4.0.0d1.txt Please also look at the corresponding proposed update version of Unicode Technical Standard #10, The Unicode Collation Algorithm: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-10.html Due to production difficulties, the beta period for this is quite short; comments for this version must be submitted by end of day, August 26, 2003. However, comments directed to the next version can be submitted after this date. Please submit feedback with the reporting form at: http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html Regards, Rick McGowan
[Way OT] Beer measurements (was: Re: Handwritten EURO sign)
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote: Yup. Hence also the Brit's complaint about the metric system: a liter of beer is too much, half a liter isn't enough, but a pint, ah, that's just right. The Imperial pint is .57 liters, whereas the Flintstone one is only .47 liters. A half-litre can of Guinness fits perfectly into the standard Irish pint glass. I mean perfectly. I just poured one. :-) Shouldn't a pint of beer be administratively fixed at 500 mL, just as a fifth of liquor in America is now officially 750 mL? Seems like a good task for an ISO working group. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
Re: [Way OT] Beer measurements (was: Re: Handwritten EURO sign)
Doug Ewell scripsit: Shouldn't a pint of beer be administratively fixed at 500 mL, just as a fifth of liquor in America is now officially 750 mL? Seems like a good task for an ISO working group. Arrgh. Shall we return to a firkin of beer in London being one size, a firkin of wine in London another, whereas in the rest of England a firkin, of beer or wine indifferently, was still a third size? Pints, unlike fifths, are in general use. Leave bad enough alone. -- They tried to pierce your heartJohn Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you wouldhttp://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord. --Gandalf
Re: [indic] Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta)
comments below. Mark __ http://www.macchiato.com Eppur si muove - Original Message - From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 18:32 Subject: Re: [indic] Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) These collation tables have one and only one of the following two problems: A) If these are intended to be language-specific tailorings then a strong warning about the linguistic inapplicabilty needs to be added, since the data is actually incorrect for the use of most of these scripts. B) If these tables are just intended to be another view of the default table, outlining the data by script, then this information should be more prominently explained. I suspect that the issue is the one outlined in (B) meaning it is just better explaining what the data is meant to be, but I have had many customers claim to me that Unicode does not understand their language/script because they assumed that the issue was as outlined in (A). B is the case; this is simply a different view of the UCA. Assuming that it is (B), this problem is unfortunately exacerbated by the many times that the language name == the script name (e.g. in Tamil, Bengali, and many others). Having the items on the left called out at the top as SCRIPTS rather than LANGUAGES would probably help with that issue (though some people do not distinguish even when the difference is explained clearly). Note, this is not a new page, just an update of an existing. However, your comments are good. Of course there is the issue that the UTS does not really seem reference this page, but maybe there is a reference somewhere else that is a bit more of a challenge to find. :-) They are linked on http://www.unicode.org/charts/. We can add a link in the UTS. Maybe in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-10.html#Common_Misperceptions -- what do you think? MichKa - Original Message - From: Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 5:37 PM Subject: [indic] Re: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) There are also beta collation charts in: http://www.unicode.org/charts/collation/beta/ Mark __ http://www.macchiato.com Eppur si muove - Original Message - From: Rick McGowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 19:27 Subject: Unicode Collation Algorithm: 4.0 Update (beta) The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce availability of the beta Default Unicode Collation Element Table for UCA 4.0. Feedback is invited. The primary goal of this release is to synchronize the repertoire of strings for collation (sorting) with the repertoire of Unicode 4.0. For future versions of the Unicode Standard that add characters, there will also be versions of the UCA tables with synchronized repertoire. A small number of additional changes have been made for consistency in treatment of new and old characters; however, other changes await working with SC22/WG2 so that future versions of ISO 14651 and UCA can be synchronized. The relevant data file is found here: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/allkeys-4.0.0d1.txt Please also look at the corresponding proposed update version of Unicode Technical Standard #10, The Unicode Collation Algorithm: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/tr10-10.html Due to production difficulties, the beta period for this is quite short; comments for this version must be submitted by end of day, August 26, 2003. However, comments directed to the next version can be submitted after this date. Please submit feedback with the reporting form at: http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html Regards, Rick McGowan
Re: [Way OT] Beer measurements (was: Re: Handwritten EURO sign)
On Sunday, August 17, 2003 10:48 PM, Doug Ewell wrote: Shouldn't a pint of beer be administratively fixed at 500 mL, just as a fifth of liquor in America is now officially 750 mL? Seems like a good task for an ISO working group. Egads! THAT would be enough to drive a person to drink. Ted Ted Hopp, Ph.D. ZigZag, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-301-990-7453 newSLATE is your personal learning workspace ...on the web at http://www.newSLATE.com/
