"Ruslan Nikolaev" wrote in message
news:mailman.138.1276028343.24349.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> Sorry, if it's again top post in your mail clients. I'll try to figure out
> what's going on later today.
>
>
>>
>> 1. Am I correct in all of that?
>
> Yes. That's the reason I was saying that U
"Matti Niemenmaa" wrote in message
news:hum8us$2o7...@digitalmars.com...
>
>> Any idea if "Ruby markup" has anything to do with the Ruby programming
>> language? It's not clear from that Wikipedia article.
>
> No, they're completely unrelated.
>
Heh, you know, that would have been perfectly obvi
On 2010-06-08 15:27:10 -0400, "Nick Sabalausky" said:
So, my questions:
1. Am I correct in all of that?
Yes. Note that combining characters exist for a variety of glyphs.
There is somewhere a "combining acute accent" that can be combined with
a "e", so you could use two code points to writ
On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:18:54 -0400, Ruslan Nikolaev
wrote:
Sorry, if it's again top post in your mail clients. I'll try to figure
out what's going on later today.
It appears as a top-post in my newsreader too.
1. Am I correct in all of that?
Yes. That's the reason I was saying that
On 2010-06-08 23:16, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Matti Niemenmaa" wrote in message
news:hum6ft$2ja...@digitalmars.com...
On 2010-06-08 22:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
6. Are there other languages with similar things for which the answers to
#3
and #4 are different? (And if so, how does Phobos/Tango
"Matti Niemenmaa" wrote in message
news:hum6ft$2ja...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2010-06-08 22:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
Thanks for the helpful response :)
>
> I recommend http://rishida.net/scripts/uniview/ for searching through
> Unicode.
>
Ahh, I'd been wanting a good Unicode equivalent
Sorry, if it's again top post in your mail clients. I'll try to figure out
what's going on later today.
>
> 1. Am I correct in all of that?
Yes. That's the reason I was saying that UTF-16 is *NOT* a lousy encoding. It
really depends on a situation. The advantage is not only space but also fas
On 2010-06-08 22:27, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
1. Am I correct in all of that?
Yes. In particular, the three-byteness of CJK characters is an
often-cited reason to use UTF-16 instead of UTF-8.
2. Is there a proper way to encode that modifier character by itself? For
instance, if you wanted t
Nick Sabalausky:
> 3. A text editor, for instance, is intended to treat something like (U+305D,
> U+3099) as a single character, right?
Languages are a product of biology, and in biology it's usually hard to put
absolute limits between things; all definitions must be flexible and a little
fuzz
The "Wide character support in D" thread got me to question and double-check
some of my assumptions about unicode. From double-checking the UTF-8
encoding, and looking at the charts at ( http://www.unicode.org/charts/ ), I
realized that Japanese, Chinese and Korean characters are almost entirely
10 matches
Mail list logo
