From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Oh yeah, well, I can be more tongue-in-cheek than all of you. I've
already
> implemented it.
Doug, this is one of those things one should be ashamed of, like believing
in the April Fool's Day message about "self serve encodings" enough to have
put together a proposal
Edward,
>
> Oh, that takes me right back...My father, who started on vacuum tube
> computers, told me about Autocoder about the time he started teaching me
> Fortran [shudder]. We were both extremely happy when he discovered APL.
>
I have seen a lot of vacuum tub computers, but the first one tha
In a message dated 2001-06-22 19:01:26 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Hey guys, Ken is just kidding. He's evidently tired of the current
> plethora of ways to represent Unicode let alone all those new ones being
> proposed. Sigh, I am too. Carl, you understand the problem
At 05:12 PM 6/22/2001, Carl W. Brown wrote:
>Ken,
...
>Another approach that would be IBM 1401 friendly is to convert the Unicode
>code point into decimal number and then convert each decimal digit into a
>base 5 and a base 2 number. We can call it UTF-5.2.
>
>The only thing that I can see is tha
Hey guys, Ken is just kidding. He's evidently tired of the current
plethora of ways to represent Unicode let alone all those new ones being
proposed. Sigh, I am too. Carl, you understand the problem of adding yet
another UTF: you too will probably have to support it.
Murray
Carl Brown as
It's DUDE-8! It's quick! It's easy! It does it all!
The DUDE-8 algorithm compresses 21-bit Unicode Scalar Values into bytes.
It is based on the DUDE(-6) algorithm currently being proposed for
i18n of DNS names.
1. Let prev = 0.
2. For each Unicode Scalar value usv, let prev = prev xor USV.
If you're interested in Chinook Jargon Shorthand, the following 252K
file is doubtless just what you are looking for. See
http://www.egt.ie/standards/iso10646/pdf/chinook-and-shorthand.pdf.
I got my copy of this booklet from
http://www.coyotepress.com/used.html -- they have several other
copi
Ken,
Can you give us a hint as to what this would be used for?
I think that if there is a specific problem that this addresses that the
impact on other systems should be considered. If you approve it then they
are people like me who might end up having to support it.
If they like length maybe
At 14:52 -0700 2001-06-22, Yves Arrouye wrote:
>Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
I think UTF-11digit would be clearly sarcastic. UTF-17, well, I don't
know. I've been deleting the threads. Not my area.
Didj'all like the Osmanya document?
Y'all happy abo
Yves asked:
> Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
No, it is deadly serious. That's why Rick and I went to the trouble to
write up and submit an Internet Draft on the topic.
--Ken
Warning: Not all irony (1) is explicitly tagged in this message.
(1) Irony n
Isn't UTF-17 just a sarcastic comment on all of this UTF- discussion?
YA
>
> In the way of solutions seeking a problem, I would like to
> propose a new UTF: UTF-17.
>
Do you have any inkling of what people intend to do with UTF-17?
My concern is that I am developing a cross platform Unicode support routine
and supporting UTF-8, UTF-16 and UTF-32 implementing of the sam
Let's stick to the issue, and not go off on some wild anti-corporation
diatribe.
While not obvious to people concentrating on the client side, EBCDIC systems
still process a large amount of the world's data. And clearly from the
specification, XML was intended to be useful on those systems as wel
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>
> > > UTF-17 will interoperate easily with UTF-64.
What is UTF-64?
[Markus]
> > At least it sorts binary in code point order.
>
> Yes, good point. Rick and I have added that to the Internet Draft
> for UTF-17.
Does it mean that there will be some UTF-17S, which wi
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> In the way of solutions seeking a problem, I would like to
> propose a new UTF: UTF-17.
As [Cicero] would have said:
Times are bad.
Developers no longer follow specs,
and everyone is proposing a new UTF.
> UTF-17 will interoperate easily with UT
Hello Elliotte,
Just two points:
- If you are suggesting that discussion move to xml-dev, can you
please give the full address of that mailing list?
- I suggest you/we don't cross-post [EMAIL PROTECTED], because
it's not an issue the Unicode consortium has to decide.
(I'm just cross-post
16 matches
Mail list logo
