Re: Swastika to be banned by Microsoft?

[John Colby]

At 12:26 14/12/2003, Michael Everson wrote:

The following story was forwarded to me. The "offending" characters in 
question are, I take it, the left-facing and right-facing swastika 
symbols, often used in Tibetan, found among the Chinese ideographs at 
U+534D (yung-drung-chi-khor) and U+5350 (yung-drung-nang-khor).

I hope that this story is not true.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=582&e=1&u=/nm/20031212/wr_nm/tech_microsoft_swastika_dc
I probably is true given the pathetic knowledge of language and 
appreciation of languages other than English within the community. If users 
of the symbols in question claim discrimination we'll have another inflamed 
battle royal.

John

John 

Re: Mapping from HTML to Unicode

[John Colby]

At 13:08 16/12/2002 +0100, Otto Stolz wrote:


Hermes Glarner wrote:

I was in search for a mapping table from HTML entities (such as " ") 
to unicode charachters (for the eg "A0"), but had no luck up to now. 
Maybe you are able to help?

The official answer from the current HTML spec:
.

HTML 4.01 is defined in ;
recommended reading for every WWW author!

There's a pretty useful set of tables here - 
http://www1.tip.nl/~t876506/EntitiesXHTML1.html

John 

Re: Speaking of Plane 1 characters...

[John Colby]

At 13:18 11/11/2002 -0700, John Hudson wrote:


At 13:50 11/11/2002, Michael Everson wrote:


By the way MichKa if you make the boxes a bit wider the whole string of 
numbers would display.

I noticed the same problem in Opera. It's okay in IE.


That's the default font size mismatch - IE do things differently (they 
would!). In Mozilla and Phoenix do they fit?

John

Microsoft withdraws web fonts

[john . colby]

see http://www.microsoft.com/opentype/fontpack/default.htm

Headsup from http://zeldman.com/

John

Re: The standard disclaimer

[john . colby]

>  from:Doug Ewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  subject: Re: The standard disclaimer
> 
> James Kass  wrote:
> 
> >>   However, just as
> >> no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding)
> >
> > What about Gummo?  (Or,... Karl?  or... Deutsche ?)
> 
> Stretch?
> 
Skid??

John
> 

Chinese pictographic language computerised

[john . colby]

See 

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_634892.html

Re: The pointless thread continues

[john . colby]

What's unicode for RTFM?

John

P.S. - Yes, I'm sorry I'm adding to this pointless thread. I agree with you, Michael.

>  from:Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  date:Fri, 05 Jul 2002 14:28:11
>  to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  subject: Re: The pointless thread continues
> 
> At 15:04  0200 2002-07-05, Michael Jansson wrote:
> 
> >Your average Internet user may not have a suitable font, may not
> >know how to install a font, may not be allowed to installed a font (e.g.
> >would have to ask their helpdesk at work), nor would not know where to find
> >a font.
> 
> Then your average Internet user should bloody well learn how to use a computer.
> 
> >People make mistakes
> 
> Of course they do.
> 
> >and bad fonts can seriously damage any OS.
> 
> Nonsense.
> -- 
> Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
> 

Re: Inappropriate Proposals FAQ

[john . colby]

But would not using rejected proposals (as well as the fictional ones) be closer to 
the truth and therefore more accurate?

John

>  from:"Suzanne M. Topping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>  date:Tue, 02 Jul 2002 15:01:16
>  to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  subject: Re: Inappropriate Proposals FAQ
> 
> (An alternative would be to use
> real-life proposals, and state why they were not accepted, but I thought
> it more politic to keep it fictional...)
> 

Opera and RedFlag Software, China

[john . colby]

Redflag Software Technologies Co., Ltd and Opera Software today announced a strategic 
announcement, and are looking forward to working together on embedded browser 
solutions for the Chinese market.

for full release see http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020701_2.html

regards

John