Re: Latin Script
I'd like to second Mark.
There is a lot of information in the Standard, including the UAXs, and
the Unicode Character Database that would help answer your questions.
The volunteers associated with the Unicode effort have worked hard
putting all that information together - so use it, instead of taking up
their time in repeating it all in personal answers to you.
A./
On 6/28/2010 9:37 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
See the following for the (/many/) differences between characters with
the Latin script, and those with LATIN in their names.
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{script:latin}&b=\p{name:/LATIN/}
I'd suggest taking a more focused approach to learning about the
standard, rather than trying relatively scattershot questions to this
list. You might read through at least the first 3 chapters of the
Unicode Standard, plus the Scripts UAX. These are all online for free
at unicode.org .
Mark
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 20:55, Tulasi > wrote:
Looks like Unicode did not create any name for any Latin letter/symbol
with LATIN in its name :-')
Am I correct?
Is there a mailing list for ISO/IEC ?
> I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the public
list.
Better to do like Edward Cherlin, i.e., type the symbol after the
name.
e.g., LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ)
That way an illiterate like me can quickly see the letter/symbol along
with its name, without additional research.
> The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character
names in
> Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names.
My I know these letters/symbols with names please?
Tulasi
PS: Thanks Doug, especially for posting the links
From: Doug Ewell mailto:d...@ewellic.org>>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:09:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Unicode Mailing List mailto:unicode@unicode.org>>
Cc: Tulasi mailto:tulas...@gmail.com>>
"Tulasi" wrote:
>> U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does not contain
"LATIN") is
>> considered part of the Latin script, while U+271D LATIN CROSS
(which
>> does) is considered common to all scripts.
>
> Can you post both symbols please, thanks?
I can point you to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf , which
includes a glyph for U+00AA, and
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf , which includes a
glyph for
U+271D. I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the
public
list.
> Trying to know who among ISO and Unicode first created the
names' list
> for Latin-script is not an indication of obsession :-')
>
> So among Unicode and ISO/IEC, who first created ISO/IEC 8859-1 &
> ISO/IEC 8859-2 letters/symbols names with each name with LATIN
in it?
Most of the characters in the various parts of ISO 8859 were
originally
standardized before Unicode or ISO 10646, so the names were probably
either created by the ISO/IEC subcommittees responsible for those
parts,
or found in earlier standards and adopted as-is.
The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character
names in
Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
Re: Latin Script
"Tulasi" wrote: Looks like Unicode did not create any name for any Latin letter/symbol with LATIN in its name :-') Am I correct? Probably not, if you take into account something like U+2C70 (Ɒ) LATIN CAPITAL LETTER TURNED ALPHA, which was added in Unicode 5.2, or U+A78D (Ɥ) LATIN CAPITAL LETTER TURNED H, which is being added to Unicode 6.0. I have no idea what sort of knowledge you are trying to gather with this. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
Re: Latin Script
See the following for the (*many*) differences between characters with the
Latin script, and those with LATIN in their names.
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{script:latin}&b=\p{name:/LATIN/}
I'd suggest taking a more focused approach to learning about the standard,
rather than trying relatively scattershot questions to this list. You might
read through at least the first 3 chapters of the Unicode Standard, plus the
Scripts UAX. These are all online for free at unicode.org.
Mark
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 20:55, Tulasi wrote:
> Looks like Unicode did not create any name for any Latin letter/symbol
> with LATIN in its name :-')
>
> Am I correct?
>
> Is there a mailing list for ISO/IEC ?
>
> > I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the public list.
>
> Better to do like Edward Cherlin, i.e., type the symbol after the name.
>
> e.g., LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ)
>
> That way an illiterate like me can quickly see the letter/symbol along
> with its name, without additional research.
>
> > The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character names in
> > Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names.
>
> My I know these letters/symbols with names please?
>
> Tulasi
> PS: Thanks Doug, especially for posting the links
>
>
> From: Doug Ewell
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:09:41 -0600
> Subject: Re: Latin Script
> To: Unicode Mailing List
> Cc: Tulasi
>
> "Tulasi" wrote:
>
> >> U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does not contain "LATIN") is
> >> considered part of the Latin script, while U+271D LATIN CROSS (which
> >> does) is considered common to all scripts.
> >
> > Can you post both symbols please, thanks?
>
> I can point you to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf , which
> includes a glyph for U+00AA, and
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf , which includes a glyph for
> U+271D. I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the public
> list.
>
> > Trying to know who among ISO and Unicode first created the names' list
> > for Latin-script is not an indication of obsession :-')
> >
> > So among Unicode and ISO/IEC, who first created ISO/IEC 8859-1 &
> > ISO/IEC 8859-2 letters/symbols names with each name with LATIN in it?
>
> Most of the characters in the various parts of ISO 8859 were originally
> standardized before Unicode or ISO 10646, so the names were probably
> either created by the ISO/IEC subcommittees responsible for those parts,
> or found in earlier standards and adopted as-is.
>
> The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character names in
> Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
>
>
>
Re: Latin Script
Looks like Unicode did not create any name for any Latin letter/symbol with LATIN in its name :-') Am I correct? Is there a mailing list for ISO/IEC ? > I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the public list. Better to do like Edward Cherlin, i.e., type the symbol after the name. e.g., LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ) That way an illiterate like me can quickly see the letter/symbol along with its name, without additional research. > The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character names in > Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names. My I know these letters/symbols with names please? Tulasi PS: Thanks Doug, especially for posting the links From: Doug Ewell Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:09:41 -0600 Subject: Re: Latin Script To: Unicode Mailing List Cc: Tulasi "Tulasi" wrote: >> U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does not contain "LATIN") is >> considered part of the Latin script, while U+271D LATIN CROSS (which >> does) is considered common to all scripts. > > Can you post both symbols please, thanks? I can point you to http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf , which includes a glyph for U+00AA, and http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2700.pdf , which includes a glyph for U+271D. I don't think it's necessary to post these glyphs to the public list. > Trying to know who among ISO and Unicode first created the names' list > for Latin-script is not an indication of obsession :-') > > So among Unicode and ISO/IEC, who first created ISO/IEC 8859-1 & > ISO/IEC 8859-2 letters/symbols names with each name with LATIN in it? Most of the characters in the various parts of ISO 8859 were originally standardized before Unicode or ISO 10646, so the names were probably either created by the ISO/IEC subcommittees responsible for those parts, or found in earlier standards and adopted as-is. The merger between Unicode and ISO 10646 caused a few character names in Unicode to be changed to match the 10646 names. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
RE: Generic Base Letter
Hi Vincent, all! (For the record, I use IE8 but not quite the same version as you; I prefer to keep my actual computer info a little private -- not that it is private of course; all pages that write cookies know it all -- I've agone into my Regional and Language Options and installed files for complex script and left-to-right languages and have set the default font to a unicode font; I've installed almost all updates for IE8 [mainly all security updates; I still need to install one that will prevent display of fixed tables in compatibility mode but this is unrelated to the display issue were are talking about]; as for Windows, I still have some updates that I've heard of some problems with that I have not installed -- I've installed most -- but the ones I have not installed do not change the display issues in question.) As for business, I am assuming that the document you sent is normally rendered in quirks mode anyway -- because of the absence of a document type declaration. (Correct me if this is not right.) However, that did not mess up my display and really should not so much affect the rendering of characters I do not think (correct me if I am wrong; I think the doc type declaration permits css style codes, xml features, etc.) However what font are you using as your default? Individual fonts may have display bugs: http://home.tiscali.nl/t876506/UnicodeDisplay.html Oherwise I do not know what to tell you. I am not sure if there is a problem with the vendor in this case thus -- though maybe there is for your browser version. There may be a problem with the vendor in other instances (I have some bidi issues with ie8; I think I should be able to use a dir attribute but am still having to use lro and rlo characters). As for the motion at Unicode to add the invisible character to the list of rejected characters, it seems that the motion was rejected. So where does that leave Michael Everson et. al's proposal? Apparently as a proposal without sufficient support; however the character proposed is still not a rejected character as far as I can tell. (Again, correct me if I am wrong.) I don't have a passcode so I cannot see any details myself. Sorry -- I cannot help here. Best, C. E. Whitehead cewcat...@hotmail.com
Re: charset parameter in Google Groups (was Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today)
On 6/28/2010 11:38 AM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: The problem with slavishly following the charset parameter is that it is often incorrect. However, the charset parameter is a signal into the character detection module, so the charset is correctly supplied from the message then the results of the detection will be weighted that direction. The weighting factor / mechanism may be something that you might look at for possible improvement. Doug raised an interesting argument, i.e. that some values of a charset parameter might have a higher probability of being correct than other values. If something is tagged Latin-1 or Windows-1252, the chances are that this is merely an unexamined default setting. Most of the other 8859 values should be much less likely to be such "blind" defaults. I wonder whether the probability of successful charset assignment increases if you were to give these more "specific" charset values a higher weight. When I played with simple recognition algorithms about 15 years ago, I found that some simple methods for crude language detection gave signatures that would allow charset detection. Even though these methods weren't sophisticated enough to resolve actual languages (esp. among closely related languages) they were good enough to narrow things down to the point, where one could pick or confirm charsets. For example, significant stretches of German can be written without diacritics, and can fool charset detection unless it picks up on the statistic patterns for German. With that in hand, the first non-ASCII character encountered is then likely to "nail" the charset. Or, absent such character, the statistics can be used to confirm that an existing charset assignment is plausible. (8859-15 having been deliberately designed to be "undetectable" is the exception, unless there's a Euro sign in the scanned part of the document...) A./
RE: charset parameter in Google Groups (was Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today)
Mark Crispin wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: >> The problem with slavishly following the charset parameter is that it >> is often incorrect. However, the charset parameter is a signal into >> the character detection module, so the charset is correctly supplied >> from the message then the results of the detection will be weighted >> that direction. > > I interpret these two sentences as: > > "The problem with following the standards is that some people don't > follow the standards. So instead of following the standards > ourselves, we will guess if the other guy follows the standards or > not, no matter how much he claims to follow standards. Too bad if our > fix transforms his valid data into garbage." At the very least, it would be nice if the charset parameter constituted a much stronger signal into the detection module than it apparently did in Andreas' case, so that if he says the text is 8859-15, and we already know that 8859-15 is nearly impossible to distinguish heuristically from 8859-1, the module might as well take his word for it. I do tend to agree with Mark that the complaint against Google Groups (with which I am not affiliated) might have been posted with more civility and less invective. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
Re: charset parameter in Google Groups (was Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today)
On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: The problem with slavishly following the charset parameter is that it is often incorrect. However, the charset parameter is a signal into the character detection module, so the charset is correctly supplied from the message then the results of the detection will be weighted that direction. I interpret these two sentences as: "The problem with following the standards is that some people don't follow the standards. So instead of following the standards ourselves, we will guess if the other guy follows the standards or not, no matter how much he claims to follow standards. Too bad if our fix transforms his valid data into garbage." I have heard that song many times over 30 years. I have often been the victim of having my valid data transformed into garbage by the attitude of standards-violators who think that I can't possibly be following the standards, therefore my data must be "fixed". When I protest that my data was "fixed" into garbage, I get told that my complaint doesn't matter. I take a hard line these days. I generally don't like the concept of "fixing" things; I believe in GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). More importantly, I utterly reject VIGO (Valid In, Garbage Out) caused by ill-considered efforts to create GIVO. What I don't understand is why the EU doesn't use its regulatory power to force compliance. If the EU can tell Britain that it can't sell eggs by the dozen any more, it can shut down a messaging service in Europe that does not comply with published standards. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
Re: Generic Base Letter
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 03:47:40PM +, Murray Sargent wrote: > Khaled notes: "There are so many issues with MS implementation(s), for > example you can not combine any arbitrary Arabic diacritical marks on any > given base character. I don't think Unicode need to invent workaround broken > vendor implementations, interested parties should instead pressure on that > vendor to fix its implementation(s)." > > The MS Office math facility allows combining marks in the range > U+0300..U+036F and most in the range U+20D0..U+20F0 to be applied to any base > character(s) including complicated mathematical expressions. Such generality > is needed in mathematics, since tildes, hats, bars, etc., are displayed over > multiple base characters such as the expression a+b. Hebrew and Arabic > combining marks aren't currently treated as valid mathematical combining > marks, so the sequence U+25CC U+05BC U+05B8 doesn't render as Vincent desires > in a math zone. It seems reasonable to allow all Unicode combining marks as > accents in math zones. That would be nice, but we were talking about combining marks in normal, non-math, text. For example, it is now common practice to use two consecutive Fatha/Damma/Kasra for a certain form of Arabic tanwin used in Koran, however Uniscribe won't allow this and will always insert a dotted circle between the two marks. I know this behaviour is documented, but I fail to see the rationale behind it. Generally speaking, doing "script spell checking" in the rendering engine is a lousy idea IMO. Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
RE: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today
> > I imagine that the Rs symbol (₨) is used outside of India. > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ > > Interestingly, the font being chosen for that character shows it to me as "Rp", not "Rs". That seems to be "Microsoft Sans Serif". It's also the case in Palatino Linotype and Tahoma. TradeStation Group, Inc. is a publicly-traded holding company (NASDAQ GS: TRAD) of three operating subsidiaries, TradeStation Securities, Inc. (Member NYSE, FINRA, SIPC and NFA), TradeStation Technologies, Inc., a trading software and subscription company, and TradeStation Europe Limited, a United Kingdom, FSA-authorized introducing brokerage firm. None of these companies provides trading or investment advice, recommendations or endorsements of any kind. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
RE: Generic Base Letter
Khaled notes: "There are so many issues with MS implementation(s), for example you can not combine any arbitrary Arabic diacritical marks on any given base character. I don't think Unicode need to invent workaround broken vendor implementations, interested parties should instead pressure on that vendor to fix its implementation(s)." The MS Office math facility allows combining marks in the range U+0300..U+036F and most in the range U+20D0..U+20F0 to be applied to any base character(s) including complicated mathematical expressions. Such generality is needed in mathematics, since tildes, hats, bars, etc., are displayed over multiple base characters such as the expression a+b. Hebrew and Arabic combining marks aren't currently treated as valid mathematical combining marks, so the sequence U+25CC U+05BC U+05B8 doesn't render as Vincent desires in a math zone. It seems reasonable to allow all Unicode combining marks as accents in math zones. Murray
Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today
Den 2010-06-28 10.16, skrev "Michael Everson" : > On 28 Jun 2010, at 06:41, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > >> Mahesh T. Pai said on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:57:53AM +0530,: >> >>> On a serious note - >>> >>> 1. Would a change of glypn / glyph shape be considered? > > It would depend on what is chosen by the Government, I should think. Also note that the character named RUPEE SIGN has a compatibility decomposition to "Rs" (short for "Rupees" I guess, not for "rupee sign"): 20A8;RUPEE SIGN;Sc;0;ET; 0052 0073N; This compatibility decomposition cannot be changed, nor can the sample glyph be changed significantly (i.e. it must continue to look much like "Rs"). Unfortunately, some current fonts erroneously display a glyph for that character that looks more like "Rp". That is a font error, and nothing else. If a "NEW RUPEE SIGN" (or whatever name is preferred) is chosen, and this goes the same way as the EURO SIGN, i.e. is highly likely to be actually used, as was the case when the EURO SIGN was added to Unicode), and assuming the glyph does not look like "Rs", a new character will need to be added. /kent k
"ASCII" emoji in iOS4
Strange. http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/06/25/ios_4_includes_emoji_input_on_japanese_keyboard.html Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Re: Generic Base Letter
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:00:18PM -0700, Asmus Freytag wrote: > The one argument that I find convincing is that too many > implementations seem set to disallow generic combination, relying > instead on fixed tables of known/permissible combinations. Only if you consider Microsoft "too many", AFAIK, only Microsoft's Uniscribe does such, stupid in my opinion, behaviour. > In that situation, a formally adopted character with the clearly > stated semantic of "is expected to actually render with ANY > combining mark from ANY script" would have an advantage. List-based > implementations would then know that this character is expected to > be added to the rendering tables for all marks of all scripts. > > Until and unless that is done, it couldn't be used successfully in > those environments, but if the proposers could get buy-in from a > critical mass of vendors of such implementations, this problem could > be overcome. > > Without such a buy-in, by the way, I would be extremely wary of such > a proposal, because the table-based nature of these implementations > would prohibit the use of this new character in the intended way. There are so many issues with MS implementation(s), for example you can not combine any arbitrary Arabic diacritical marks on any given base character. I don't think Unicode need to invent workaround broken vendor implementations, interested parties should instead pressure on that vendor to fix its implementation(s). Regards, Khaled -- Khaled Hosny Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team Free font developer
Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today
-On [20100628 10:37], Michael Everson (ever...@evertype.com) wrote: >I imagine that the Rs symbol (₨) is used outside of India. CLDR shows that en_PK uses it. -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Time is merely a residue of Reality...
Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today
Report of deferral: http://www.ptinews.com/news/740593_Cabinet-defers-decision-on-rupee-symbol Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Re: Indian Rupee Sign to be chosen today
On 28 Jun 2010, at 06:41, Mahesh T. Pai wrote: > Mahesh T. Pai said on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:57:53AM +0530,: > >> On a serious note - >> >> 1. Would a change of glypn / glyph shape be considered? It would depend on what is chosen by the Government, I should think. >> 2. What are the origins of that character? > > I feel that an answer is important, because the code chart specifically > mentions this as the Indian rupee sign. > > http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U20A0.pdf It's OK. All a new character would need is a unique name. I imagine that the Rs symbol (₨) is used outside of India. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Front of pack nutrition labelling of food
Some readers might like to know of the following document. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/consultationresponse/responsefopnutritionlabeling.pdf My idea about using shape as well as colour is included on page 29. The page from which the document is linked is as follows. http://www.food.gov.uk/consultations/ukwideconsults/2009/fopnutritionlabelling There is Unicode involved in this as there is also a font and a typecase_ pdf for the symbols. http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2870 The font includes glyphs for three shapes from the Geometric Shapes range. http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U25A0.pdf In the Unicode chart the three shapes each have the word BLACK in their name. The font also includes the same glyphs mapped to the positions normally used for r, g, o, y as well, for convenience when using some graphics packages. The font also includes glyphs for the alphabet A..Z so that the font can conveniently be used in those graphics packages that show the name of each font using glyphs from the font itself. William Overington 28 June 2010
