1. Unicode points are NUMBERS. Numbers can be written in ANY base. Knowing decimal
values of codepoints is sometimes useful, so please print them in the next edition of
the Unicode book.
2. There was a Shift-JIS index for kanji. I don't know much about kanji, but it seems
to me that they are
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 2 december 2001 02:16
Subject: C with bar for with
Someone said that in English, c-with-underbar means with. My mom writes
this as c-with-overline.
Well, then I suppose this is a glyph variant of the c with
Hi UniCode list,
I am dealing with unicode for XML. I'm sorry if this bothers a few
people, but reading the technical information is not very easy. The
crossings out and underlinings don't help, the information seems a bit
scattered, and the usually interesting information is not linked to in
It may even be a glyph variant of the w with forward slash...
YA
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Persson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 3:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: C with bar for with
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
1.) Swedish ampersand (see .bmp). It's an o (for och, i.e. and)
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
1.) Swedish ampersand (see .bmp). It's an o (for och, i.e. and)
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
1.) Swedish ampersand (see .bmp). It's an o (for och, i.e. and)
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used
- Original Message -
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 1 december 2001 21:01
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
1.) Swedish ampersand (see .bmp). It's an o (for och, i.e. and)
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost always used
1.) Swedish ampersand (see .bmp). It's an o (for
och, i.e. and)
with a line below. In handwritten text it is almost
always used instead of
, in machine-written text I don't think I've ever seen it.
This might be a character in its own right, as different
from the ampersand
as
At 17:12 +0100 2001-12-02, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Similarly, COMBINING OVERLINE and COMBINING LOW LINE
should be used, together with ordinary I, V etc. (when possible)
to get lined roman numerals.
What? Surely this is a font matter, and using combining characters a
hack here. In Quark one might
At 06:17 12/2/2001, Stefan Persson wrote:
Well, this character is *only* used in Swedish, while is used in most
(all?) languages using Roman letters, so it has a partially different usage!
Using this character in, for example, an English text would be *wrong*!
Which is why I went on to suggest
The lower case 'c' with either and overscore or an underscore
is used in medical terminology. It means "with" and comes from the Latin "cum".
The English version is lower case 'w' with a solidus "w/"
Seán
There is code for doing UTF8/16/32 conversions:
ftp://www.unicode.org/Public/PROGRAMS/CVTUTF
Rick
At 10:05 -0800 2001-12-02, John Hudson wrote:
At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
It is certainly not a glyph variant of an ampersand. An ampersand
is a ligature of e and t. This is certainly an abbreviation of och.
That both mean and is NOT a reason for unifying different signs.
The
Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
-Original Message-
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:05:36 -0800
To: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are these characters encoded?
At 14:14 12/1/2001, Michael Everson wrote:
It is
In a message dated 2001-12-02 11:00:32 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
o. and o-with-underscore are NOT glyph variants of a ligature of
e and t (at a character level), no matter what they mean.
I suggested that Stefan's o-underscore and might OR might not be a
variation of
At 15:16 12/2/2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then why not unify DIGIT THREE with HAN DIGIT THREE?
I don't know enough about the Han encoding to answer that. Because they are
distinguished in existing character sets? Because someone has a need to
distinguish them in plain text?
I'm not saying
Perhaps they should be. I wonder: When transcribing a foreign name (like a business
name) that includes the ampersand, would a Swede use the och sign?
I can't answer that.
In other words, does there exist a case where the ampersand and the och sign are not
interchangeable?
-Original
At 21:33 12/1/2001, Asmus Freytag wrote:
If the character can be shown to have as much justification for existence
as coded character as similar characters in the standard, i.e. if it's
ever used in printed handwriting, etc., etc., than we will have a tough
time coming up with a unification
19 matches
Mail list logo
