Is there an IBM group mark symbol?
I'm writing about the IBM 1401 and there's one character from its character set that I couldn't find in Unicode: the group mark. The group mark is three horizontal lines with a vertical line through it (see attached image). This character is used in various books and publications, so it's a real symbol that is used in text. Would it make sense for me to submit a proposal to add this character? Group mark image (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1401#Character_and_op_codes): Thank you, Ken ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: Is there an IBM group mark symbol?
There may be something like it in the math symbols sets, but if there's not, please feel free to submit a proposal. On Jan 30, 2015 8:59 AM, Ken Shirriff ken.shirr...@gmail.com wrote: I'm writing about the IBM 1401 and there's one character from its character set that I couldn't find in Unicode: the group mark. The group mark is three horizontal lines with a vertical line through it (see attached image). This character is used in various books and publications, so it's a real symbol that is used in text. Would it make sense for me to submit a proposal to add this character? Group mark image (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1401#Character_and_op_codes): Thank you, Ken ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: UAX 29 questions
2015-01-30 9:32 GMT+01:00 Mark Davis ☕️ m...@macchiato.com: 2. Also, the following 2 rules are not equivalent: a) Any × (Format | Extend) b) X (Extend | Format)* → X That's what I replied in the first message but using an as if which was not clear enough, my seconde reply reformulated it by making clear about the right side (the substitution iccuring n the next rules; that you view as a shortcut). Your first argument about convolution is not very justified between WB56 and WB57 that are also clear when rewritten by separating ALetter and HebrewLetter. But I also note this case for Hebrew's handling of apostrophes/quotes also exists in the Latin script (including in English only) for the context of word-breaking only (this does not apply to linebreaking and syllable breaking for hyphenation, which are other types of breakers). The rule about Format and Extend is still kept separate in WB56 and listed first only because it correctly preserves the canonical equivalences for extenders, which include all combining characters with non-zero combining class; and which also include the gold rule for not breaking in the middle of default grapheme clusters (which also includes joiners like CGJ and ZWJ with any breaker algorithms, except code point breakers for some conforming UTF's like UTF-16). WB57 is evidently subject to tailorings. It just provides a default behavior where the single quote/apostrophe is handled as an elision mark most often used at end of words, and glued with the next word without space separation. WB57 It also handles the case where it is also followed by some spaces or other punctuations and the single quote is then not an orthographic elision mark but a punctuation marking an end of quotation. One problem is the SingleQuote class used in WB57 is possibly too large : it acts as an elision mark (apostrophe) only for a smaller number of single-quote-like characters. The other problem of WB57 is that it assumes that elision marked by apostrophes occurs only at end of words (not true even for English) and this is where per-language tailoring is not only possible but most probably recommended. Such tailoring should will affect the behavor of WB56 (notably in English, French, Italian... where the apostrophe is lexicalized and its usage regulated by their standard grammar). But I wonder if tailoring of WB57 is not also needed for Hebrew. I see WB57 only as a initial default tailoring for the script itself, not for the actual language (which may also be Yiddish). And could also include usual transcriptions of foreign words, or of common but informal abbreviations/contractions too (the apostrophe is highly prefered to the dot for abbreviating/contracting in the middle of a word and notably when the abbreviated part is not even pronounced but completely elided. It seems ajso that Swedish may also use the colon in the middle of a word, without space separations, instead of an apostrophe. Other languages may prefer other signs for elisions (including an hyphen; which does not break words but only syllables for candidate breaking of long lines), notably if there are confusions with quote-like letters Another common notation (found in French typography) uses superscripts for the final letters when elision occurs in the middle of a word, but this is in fact just a written abbreviation (this totaly replaces the use of the abbreviation dot; normally never used in the middle and completely eliminated in acronyms): this is not really an elision the abbreviated word with superscript is sctill fullly read without the elision; so the apostrophe cannot be used. ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: Is there an IBM group mark symbol?
Le 30/01/2015 17:55, Ken Shirriff a écrit : I'm writing about the IBM 1401 and there's one character from its character set that I couldn't find in Unicode: the group mark. The group mark is three horizontal lines with a vertical line through it (see attached image). This character is used in various books and publications, so it's a real symbol that is used in text. Would it make sense for me to submit a proposal to add this character? In may 2007, Ken Whistler answered a slightly more general question on old IBM characters : http://unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2007-m05/0373.html The group mark was the more problematic and his answer was : * You can see it as a glyph variant of ␝ U+241D SYMBOL FOR GROUP SEPARATOR * You can have a symbol of the same appearance by combining ≡⃒ U+2261 IDENTICAL TO, U+20D2 COMBINING LONG VERTICAL LINE OVERLAY. However, none of the solution would seem to be really practical, and I didn’t find any corresponding symbol (including the variants in http://unicode.org/Public/UCD/latest/ucd/StandardizedVariants.txt ). A proposal might help add it to the standard. Frédéric ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: Is there an IBM group mark symbol?
Le 30/01/15 18:30, Jean-François Colson a écrit : Le 30/01/15 17:55, Ken Shirriff a écrit : I'm writing about the IBM 1401 and there's one character from its character set that I couldn't find in Unicode: the group mark. The group mark is three horizontal lines with a vertical line through it (see attached image). This character is used in various books and publications, so it's a real symbol that is used in text. Would it make sense for me to submit a proposal to add this character? Why not? In the meantime, you could approximate it with U+2261 IDENTICAL TO U+20D2 COMBINING LONG VERTICAL LINE OVERLAY: ≡⃒ Here is what that looks like in FreeMono: http://colson.eu/≡⃒.png and in DejaVu Sans Mono: http://colson.eu/≡⃒..png Group mark image (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1401#Character_and_op_codes): Thank you, Ken ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode ___ Unicode mailing list Unicode@unicode.org http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Re: UAX 29 questions
I apology in advance that I'm running low on time, and didn't go through all the messages on this thread carefully. So I may not be fully appreciating people's positions. I'm just making some quick points about 2 items that caught my eye. 1. There are certainly times where two rules in sequence may overlap, just for simplicity. X Y* x Z Y x Z* W The first rule could trigger on X Y Z W, even though the second would also trigger on it. This may or may not be sloppiness; sometimes it simply makes the second rule too convoluted to also exclude triggering on everything that could possibly trigger earlier. That being said, if there simplifications in the rules that would make it clearer, I'd suggest submitting a proposal for that. The UTC is meeting next week, and could consider it either then or at subsequent meetings. Note: the HTML files in http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/auxiliary/ have a number of sample cases (which are also used in the test files). Hovering over boundaries in those sample cases shows which rule is triggered, such as in http://unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/auxiliary/GraphemeBreakTest.html#samples We're always open to additional samples that are illustrative of how the rules work. As I thought about your message, it became clear to me that it would be useful to have a complete enough set of sample cases that each rule is triggered by at least one case, if you or anyone else is interested in helping to add those. 2. Also, the following 2 rules are not equivalent: a) Any × (Format | Extend) b) X (Extend | Format)* → X (b) implies (a), but not the reverse. The difference is on the right side of characters. Rule b, affects every subsequent rule, and can be viewed as a shorthand. After it, we can just say: A B × C D And that has the effect of saying: A (Extend | Format)* B (Extend | Format)* × C (Extend | Format)* D See also http://unicode.org/reports/tr29/#Grapheme_Cluster_and_Format_Rules However, it may not be clear that (b) implies (a); that might be what you are getting at. If so, then we could add an explicit statement to that effect. Mark https://google.com/+MarkDavis *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com wrote: On 01/25/2015 05:14 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote: This is not a contradiction. At the very least it is too sloppy for a standard. Once there is a match in the list of rules, later rules shouldn't have to be looked at. I'll submit a formal feedback form. But there is another issue as well. I do not see how the specified rules when applied to the sequence of code points: U+0041 U+200D U+0020 cause the ZWJ, an Extend, to not break with the A, an ALetter. Rule WB4 is Ignore Format and Extend characters, except when they appear at the beginning of a region of text.. Not clearly stated, but it appears to me that the ZWJ must be considered here to be the beginning of a region of text, as we are looking at the boundary between it and the A. No rule specifically mentions ALetter followed by an Extend, so by the default rule, WB14 Otherwise, break everywhere (including around ideographs) this should be a word break position. But that is absurd, as the Extend is supposed to extend what precedes it. If I add a rule Don't break before Extend or Format × (Extend | Format) my implementation passes all tests. I added this rule before WB4. combine the two rules and they are equivalent to these two alternate rules: WB56 can be read as these two: (WB56a) ALetter × (MidLetter | MidNumLet | Single_Quote) (ALetter | Hebrew_Letter) (WB56b) Hebrew_Letter × (MidLetter | MidNumLet | Single_Quote) (ALetter | Hebrew_Letter) Then add : (WB57) Hebrew_Letter × Single_Quote it just removes the condition of a letter following the quote in WB56b. So that WB56b and WB57 can be read as equivalent to these two: (WB56c) Hebrew_Letter × (MidLetter | MidNumLet) (ALetter | Hebrew_Letter) (WB57) Hebrew_Letter × Single_Quote But you cannot merge any of these two last rules in a single rule for WB56. 2015-01-25 7:26 GMT+01:00 Karl Williamson pub...@khwilliamson.com mailto:pub...@khwilliamson.com: I vaguely recall asking something like this before, but if so, I didn't save the answers, and a search of the archives didn't turn up anything. Some of the rules in UAX #29 don't make sense to me. For example, rule WB7a Hebrew_Letter × Single_Quote seems to say that a Hebrew_Letter followed by a Single Quote shouldn't break. (And Rule WB4 says that actually there can be Extend and Format characters between the two and those should be ignored). But the earlier rule, WB6 (ALetter | Hebrew_Letter) × (MidLetter | MidNumLet | Single_Quote) (ALetter | Hebrew_Letter) seems to me to say (among other things) that a Hebrew Letter
