-Original Message-From: AGARWAL
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 7:43
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject:
information
Dear Sir/Madam,
Hello!
We are a translation agency by the name
MULTI-LINGUIST, operating from India. We are interested in incorporating the
Hello Mr. Paresh Agarwal,
Yes, it is certainly possible to make your fonts based on Unicode. The fonts
would need to contain glyphs mapped to the corresponding code-points in the
Indic blocks. If the fonts contain a number of consonant conjuncts, and
glyph variants for vowel signs whose use is
Ed asked:
Would it be appropriate to look at the title of GB-13000, which is ISO/IEC
10646-1 in China?
Probably not, since it is a national version of 10646, and not of Unicode.
It is, at any rate: Xinxi jishu -- Tongyong duobawei bianma zifuji (UCS), i.e.
"Information technology --
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the first step to interoperability in big, interconnected system
software using C is to set up fundamental header files containing
well-defined datatypes of fixed sizes, to make up for the lack of same
in the definition of C itself. The lack of
Title: Oracle and Surrogate Pairs
What is the correct way of supporting surrogate pairs in Oracle 8? Anything wrong with approach of making fields 3 times longer from ASCII or should fields be 4 times ASCII as per UTF-8 spec?
Later,
Mikko
Globalization Specialist
Onyx Software
[EMAIL
Does the field in question need to support literally any possible character
in Unicode 3.0 and beyond (since 3.0 does not have any surrogates
assigned!)?
If not, then you can actually consider how big the field needs to be by the
characters being used and what is the largest per character byte
Mikko,
As there is no character defined in surrogate range in Unicode 3.0,
the maximum width for Oracle UTF8 character set is 3 bytes. Here I recommend
you to use 3 times for the number of characters you intend to store
in a column.
Regards,
Jianping..
Mikko Lahti wrote:
What is the correct way
What is
the recommendation what comes dealing surrogate pairs and supporting CJK
Unified Ideographs, Extension B (especially HKSCS) which will be in next
version of the Unicode standard?
Mikko
-Original
Message-
From: Jianping Yang
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday,
Does the field in question need to support literally any possible character
in Unicode 3.0 and beyond (since 3.0 does not have any surrogates
assigned!)?
True, but within a year or so, there *will* be surrogates assigned in Unicode. One
cannot be premature in supporting them at
9 matches
Mail list logo
