> I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community are:
> 1) truly unhappy with their current fonts, and
> 2) eagerly awaiting encoding so that they can use supplementary character
> fonts, and
> 3) will upgrade software as needed to accomplish #2
If you check out the Shavian group on gr
Michael \(michka\) Kaplan scripsit:
> As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis the
> "potential" roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything else.
Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
isn't true. Michael Everson is more than o
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As for whether your script would be encoded, where it ends up vis-a-vis
the
> > "potential" roadmap is more a side effect of who you know than anything
else.
>
> Smiley or not, someone might actually believe that, and it
> isn't true. Michael Everson is
James Kass scripsit:
> Does the vocabulary make things clearer or cause confusion?
> If we need to distinguish between reversible script conversion
> and irreversible script conversion, could we not simply say
> "reversible script conversion" and so forth?
No, that does not capture the distincti
From: "John H. Jenkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> FWIW, there is a small but non-zero Shavian user community, and a
> number of fonts are available, some of them very pretty.
Of this I have no doubt -- but this was true of Klingon, also.
I was expressing doubt that the majority of the community ar
At 12:38 PM -0700 7/4/01, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
>I would welcome evidence that there are in fact supplementary character
>fonts that will be produced, and of course evidence that the "user
>community" would actually have the software needed to use these fonts or
>input methods to type the
From: "Richard Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> now, I know of other phonemic alphabets for English ... e.g., I think
> Ben Franklin invented one, ... and I have one of my own. Are any of
> these slated for encoding too?
Fictional scripts have been, are, and will likely continue to be a constant
sour
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
> >Michael Everson wrote:
> >>
> >> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
> >> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
> >> next meeting of WG2.
> >
> >Hi Michael
At 11:10 -0700 2001-07-04, Richard Cook wrote:
>Michael Everson wrote:
>>
>> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
>> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
>> next meeting of WG2.
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>I'm new to the idea that anyone would
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> UTC approved it and there's a new document from John Jenkins and me
> on Shavian for WG2, so it should get approved for ballotting at the
> next meeting of WG2.
Hi Michael,
I'm new to the idea that anyone would care to have Shavian encoded. Will
you enlighten me?
Bes
Lukas Pietsch wrote:
>
> well, the English dictionaries give usages of words in everyday
> language, and that's fine. But in their usage as technical terms,
> the distinction between "transcription" and "transliteration"
> (roughly along the lines of the
> http://www.elot.gr/tc46sc2/purpose
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> There have been some messages in this thread discussing whether something
> is transliteration or transcription. On that point I have two comments:
> first, ISO TC 46 has created definitions for these two terms that apply to
> ISO standards under their purview; thes
At 07:04 +0100 2001-07-04, David Starner wrote:
>I'm curious why Shavian is up for standardization before Tengwar and Cirth.
>They're all constructed scripts by authors (or at least for authors)
>of the 20th century, the only big difference being that one was used
>for one book and the others h
On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
> (Couldn't a ZWJ be used as a way of "joining" two trigrams as a
> hexagram?)
No! :'-(( Please don't overpollute the ZWJ. There's already more semantics
to that codepoint that one can simply count on her/his fingers...
roozbeh
I forgot something: *Please* use W3C's HTML validator at:
http://validator.w3.org/
best,
roozbeh
On 07/04/2001 06:01:55 AM James Kass wrote:
>The web page cited by Mr. Constable is simply misleading, unless
>it were to be amended to clearly state "for the purposes of
>this and related documents..." these words mean &c.
Please note: I wasn't citing that page because I consider those definit
- Original Message -
From: "James Kass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Unicode transliterations (and other operations)
>
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Maybe not. This is the part I
James Kass wrote:
> Indeed! Or, at least if we need a correct definition of
> an English word, we should consult an English dictionary.
> The web page cited by Mr. Constable is simply misleading, unless
> it were to be amended to clearly state "for the purposes of
> this and related documents...
paliga wrote:
> As I could furtively note in the last Unicode 3.1 (well, pre-last, but could
> not yet download 3.1.1.) many of the required characters are present there,
> but indeed some should be added.
Which Eastern, central and southern-European characters do you find missing?
(please inclu
てんどうりゅうじ wrote:
>
> We ought to try to avoid twisting language, even if we do pretty much operate within
>our own little techie world here.
Indeed! Or, at least if we need a correct definition of
an English word, we should consult an English dictionary.
The web page cited by Mr. Constable is
The problems connected to various uses of extended Roman characters, not
only in Slovene and Croatian, but in all the central-east European languages
(including Baltic, Turkic and Maltese) and also in linguistic transcriptions
(like Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic) is vast and complex.
As I could
Peter Constable wrote:
> It is this phenomenon which is the focus of
> interest for me and my SIL colleagues: a single language that
> is written by different portions of the language community
> in different writing systems, particularly different writing
> systems based on different scripts.
I
On 07/03/2001 09:47:17 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
>Unfortunately, the terms "transcription" and "transliteration" are
commonly
>mixed up by non-experts, causing much confusion.
>
>Please, somebody let me know if this is still not right.
See my comments on this and the URL for ISO definitions in my ot
On 07/02/2001 02:56:16 PM Mark Davis wrote:
>For those interested in Transliteration (and other Unicode
transformations),
>there is a new ICU web demo program on
>
>http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/icu/translitdemo...
This opens an area of some interest to me and some of m
Maybe we are just being weird here.
We ought to try to avoid twisting language, even if we do pretty much operate within
our own little techie world here.
Still haven't got the multiplication riddle solved, Mr. Kass?
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!
>T
Because Shavian was "serious" and the other two were "fantastic", I guess.
No. This is no good. It is 04:57 and I have had zero sake. That is why I am crazy.
Just because more people know Saotome Ranma than your next-door neighbor, does that
mean Saotome Ranma comes before your next-door neigh
$B$i$s$^(B $B!z$8$e$&$$$C$A$c$s!z(B
$B!!!_$"$+$M(B
$B!
>> Should one consider the Chinese oracle bone
>> inscriptions (1200 BC) for entry to the unicode list?
>> They really did exist.
>
>They are "unified" with the Han. As far as I know, nobody has undertaken
>the actual
Writes Michael Everson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Now available:
>
> N2366 Proposal to add five phonetic characters to the UCS
> by Richard S. Cook, Jr., and Michael Everson
> http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2366.pdf
>
> N2361 Revised proposal to encode the Osmanya script
Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Maybe not. This is the part I got wrong several weeks ago when we had this
> discussion, and I hope my understanding is better now.
>
> Transliteration is about building a reversible mapping between the original
> (in this case, Japanese) sounds and a set of (in this
29 matches
Mail list logo
