> > Since the U in UTF stands for Unicode, UTF-32 cannot
> represent more than
> > what Unicode encodes, which is is 1+ million code points.
> Otherwise, you're
> > talking about UCS-4. But I
> > thought that one of the latest revs of ISO 10646
> explicitely specified that
> > UCS-4 will never enc
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> It is not very clear to me what is included in Extension B: how is it
> possible to know something more about it?
Look at DUTR #27[1] (2001.2.23), section 10.1, and see if any of those
sources are ones that contain characters that are important to you
On 03/09/2001 12:30:52 PM "Richard, Francois M" wrote:
>I sure would like to look at a comparison of these costs. Are they
available
>anywhere?
In Multilingual Computing #36, there was a book review of the book
"Translating Into Success: Cutting-Edge Strategies for Going Multilingual
in a Globa
Has anyone had success using Citrix metaframe with a Unicode enabled MFC
app? Anyone tried to do this and had problems? I'm mostly interested in
Version 1.8a, but any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Bob
Arabic letters, when alone, always appear in form 1 -- the form designed for
just such a use. There is one medial form--for letters on both sides--and
two other forms, one for when the letter is attached from the right, and one
attached from the left.
Arabic short vowels (which are like diacriti
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Nick NICHOLAS wrote:
> (1) When a letter with a final variant appears alone --- say as a numeral,
> or in discussion of the letter or phoneme --- does it under any
> circumstances appear in its final form, or is it always medial?
>
> (2) Do diacritics --- vowel points, can
Many thanks to all who responded on the Albanian alphabet. No script too
obscure, eh? :-) Kudos!
With regard to the recent discussion on Greek final sigmas, I have a
couple of questions on the final forms of letters in Hebrew and Arabic,
just for the sake of comparison.
(1) When a letter with a
Well, C stadard library is every where including non-Unix systems in these
days as a "Runtime" support. I do though know and experienced as a fact
that back in and up to early 80s there was no such thing called mblen in all
the systems but things had been changed quite a bit so many years ago. Als
Richard,
Looks excellent! I'll use some of those ideas and Michka's cost
comments.
By the way, homepage.com told me they are quitting the hosting
business so my pages will need to move again. I'll let you
know where it goes. Richard, you are welcome to host a copy
at your site. I'll make a note t
Ienup Sung wrote:
>
> Well, on the contrary to what you said, it is a very good option since you
> don't have to know anything about what's inside the character bytes which
> means by using the mblen/mbrlen, you can achieve codeset independent
> programming that will support not only Unicode/UTF-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On 03/09/2001 12:53:57 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>
> >Um... no. The UTF-32 CES can handle much more than the current
> >space of the Unicode CCS. As far as I can tell, it's good
> to go until we
> >need more than 32 bits to represent
Tex Texin wrote:
>
> not the same as work for execs. The success of Unicode is obvious
> to us (techies) is not clear to them.
Tex,
Recently looking at and talking about this
http://i18n.homepage.com/UnicodeBenefits.html
with some people, initiated and uninitiated, I quickly wrote this:
http
Cathy Wissink (from the Windows division at Microsoft) will be discussing
the issue at her presentation in Hong Kong, talking about the next version
of Windows and Unicode (though I am not sure how much detail she will give
in the presentation). There will be more detail in the paper, obviously, b
Well, on the contrary to what you said, it is a very good option since you
don't have to know anything about what's inside the character bytes which
means by using the mblen/mbrlen, you can achieve codeset independent
programming that will support not only Unicode/UTF-8 but also any other major
co
On 03/09/2001 12:53:57 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>Um... no. The UTF-32 CES can handle much more than the current
>space of the Unicode CCS. As far as I can tell, it's good to go until we
>need more than 32 bits to represent the ACR. I'm actually surprised that
>this comment was so misunders
Yves Arrouye wrote:
> > > On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you really want to finish the job, there's always
> > > UTF-32, which
> > > >should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
> > > >4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
> > >
> > > Um... no.
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 10:56:30AM -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>
> Since the U in UTF stands for Unicode, UTF-32 cannot represent more than
> what Unicode encodes, which is is 1+ million code points. Otherwise, you're
> talking about UCS-4. But I
> thought that one of the latest revs of ISO 10646
> > On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
> >
> > >If you really want to finish the job, there's always
> > UTF-32, which
> > >should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
> > >4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
> >
> > Um... no. The 1,113,023 character alphabet (
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>
> >If you really want to finish the job, there's always
> UTF-32, which
> >should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
> >4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
>
> Um.
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: Re: Unicode market acceptance
>
>
> One of the most compelling arguments for those managers is
> the financial
> one... ease of support
Try:
http://www.glreach.com/globstats/index.php3
I am sure the coverage is not the extent you want Peter.
Also from time to time I see forecasts of when some language will
be the primary language of x% of internet users, or
when x% of web pages will be in some language.
Would be interesting to
Am 2001-03-06 um 15:28 h UTC hat Patrick Andries geschrieben:
> More polysemy for the dash...
To which I have remarked:
> Particularly, as the Ladin orthography also features a hyphen
> (Strich d'uniun),
While browsing through Gian Paul Ganzoni "Grammatica Ladina:
Grammatica sistematica dal ruma
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 03/09/2001 11:01:53 AM "Tex Texin" wrote:
>
> >We have estimates for (human) language usages on the web
>
> Do you mean the number of different languages used on the web? I'd be
> curious to know what such estimates are.
>
>
>
> - Peter
>
On 03/09/2001 11:01:53 AM "Tex Texin" wrote:
>We have estimates for (human) language usages on the web
Do you mean the number of different languages used on the web? I'd be
curious to know what such estimates are.
- Peter
Thomas Chan wrote:
> > Does it exist at least one character > U+ that is
> > commonly used in at least one modern language?
>
> How about music and math notation?
About the music symbols in Unicode 3.1, they are just the basic building
blocks for it. So I assume that handling surrogates (or
One of the most compelling arguments for those managers is the financial
one... ease of support for multiple languages. If you look at the cost of
the multiple binary releases of a product like Win95 and compare it to the
single EXE model, the issue is clear... and Unicode is the way to achieve
th
Michael,
The great thing about most books is that they give you answers. The hard
part of Globalization is asking the right questions. Knowing what questions
to ask comes with years of experience.
Because globalization must fit into the culture of the software development
company if it going t
Doug,
Alan Wood also has a good site an Unicode and browser support.
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/unicode/
Carl
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 7:55 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: Re: Problem with MSIE 5.0 for Macintosh
Guys,
I know the list of who's who using Unicode. Me too is not a
compelling business argument. None of these put Unicode as
the sole character set to use, so its simply another way to go.
(OK, I know Java and XML please don't push back on these. Fundamentally,
although they use Unicode I can als
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Addison P. Phillips wrote:
> > [...]
> > currently there are no characters "up there" this isn't a really big
> > deal. Shortly, when Unicode 3.1 is official, there will be 40K or so
> > characters in the supplemental planes... but they'll be
> > rela
At 01:06 -0800 2001-03-09, J%ORG KNAPPEN wrote:
>Having consulted my references:
>
>The discussion of the Albanian alphabets is in Jenssen, p 494 ff.
>Haarmann has nothing about them, not even the pictures.
See also Faulmann pp. 181-82.
--
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://w
On 03/08/2001 07:40:25 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>If you really want to finish the job, there's always UTF-32, which
>should do rather nicely until we meet the space aliens aith the
>4,293,853,186 character alphabet!
Um... no. The 1,113,023 character alphabet (one more than the encodable
scal
A reference for all kinds of cryptographic info, including telegraphic code,
is at http://www.codasaurus.com/. I haven't delved into the site much, but
it looks promising.
jeff
Ienup Sung wrote:
>
> I also implement UTF-16 and UTF-8 support in various levels and
> I find UTF-8 is more easier to handle and write software with since
> we have many MB functions, e.g., mblen() for byte length, that we can use,
> and, there is no byte ordering hassle that we need to worry ab
Pierpaolo BERNARDI wrote:
> "It's what Microsoft uses" should work, methinks.
Tex Texin wrote:
> Not really. For one, many companies use platforms other than Windows.
Then add "And it's also used in *Java*, *HTML*, *SQL Server*, and *Oracle*.
Oh, by the way, and *IBM* has a *free* library to sup
Addison P. Phillips wrote:
> [...]
> currently there are no characters "up there" this isn't a really big
> deal. Shortly, when Unicode 3.1 is official, there will be 40K or so
> characters in the supplemental planes... but they'll be
> relatively rare.
This reminds me of a question that I wante
Having consulted my references:
The discussion of the Albanian alphabets is in Jenssen, p 494 ff.
Haarmann has nothing about them, not even the pictures.
--J"org Knappen
37 matches
Mail list logo
