Re: 31 Angry Watanabes (or the Itaiji problem)

Dan the Man wrote: >> Right except for one thing. Han Unification. Itaiji should have been >> COLLATED, not UNIFIED. Well, that maybe overruled in time (at least we >> have enough code points for that now) and John Jenkins replied: > No, it won't be overruled. > ... > Unicode will pro

Re: Collation - last character?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Asmus Freytag wrote: > At 09:01 AM 3/19/02 -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote: > >TUS does not prevent anyone to put noncharacter code points in Unicode > >strings. As a matter of fact, p. 23 of TUS 3.0 reads "U+ is reserved > >for private program use as a sentinel o

OT, questions about Hanzi

Maybe this is off-topic, but I figure this is the place where I could get the quickest answers. What are the code points to write these things in their native languages? 1. "Hanzi" in Traditional and in Simplified 2. "Kanji" in Kanji 3. "Hangul" in Hangul (is it U+D55C U+AD74?) 4. Is "Hanja" ev

Avestan and Old Persian (was: Re: Private Use Agreements ... wandering off-topic)

Ken Whistler wrote: > Preliminary proposals have been around for encoding both Avestan and > Old Persian Cuneiform for a long time: > [...] > The proposals will likely languish until Michael Everson discovers > he has some free time on his hands to pursue consensus with > academic Iranianists and

Re: Bad programs die quick; Bad data structures die hard.

A 21:39 2002-03-19 +, Michael Everson a écrit : >At 06:32 +0900 2002-03-20, Dan Kogai wrote: >>Y2K is a good example. It was not program's bug but that of data >>representation. > >I don't understand why people are writing '02 and the like. Were they not >paying attention? [Alain] Writing

Re: ConScript (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and UnapprovedCharacters)

At 08:49 -0800 2002-03-19, Doug Ewell wrote: >What I mean is that for the majority of the scripts registered in >ConScript, glyphs are either not available or unreasonably hard to >access, because the ConScript registration depends on outside links that >have vanished or have been moved to obscure

Re: 31 Angry Watanabes (or the Itaiji problem)

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 02:15 PM, Dan Kogai wrote: > On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 01:33 , John H. Jenkins wrote: >> Of course, the correct solution to this is not to grouse about Unicode >> (since it does better than any other character set around), but for JIS >> to get an authoritat

Re: Bad programs die quick; Bad data structures die hard.

At 06:32 +0900 2002-03-20, Dan Kogai wrote: >Y2K is a good example. It was not program's bug but that of data >representation. I don't understand why people are writing '02 and the like. Were they not paying attention? -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com

Re: 31 Angry Watanabes (or the Itaiji problem)

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 01:33 , John H. Jenkins wrote: > Of course, the correct solution to this is not to grouse about Unicode > (since it does better than any other character set around), but for JIS > to get an authoritative list of the characters people actually need > then lobby the

Bad programs die quick; Bad data structures die hard.

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 12:17 , Suzanne M. Topping wrote: >> As Kato pointed out, Unicode is more pro-programmers than >> pro-users. > > This is true of any character set. Users are not at all concerned with > how their script is stored. Most would prefer to never know about, hear > about,

Re: [craigberry@mac.com: "+" not a valid filename char on VMS]

Craig and Encode hackers, Okay, Here is the quick solution which will also be the part of official changes. In the instruction follows, I assume perl/ext/Encode or Encode-0.xx is the working directory. 0. rename Encode/euc-jp+0212.ucm to Encode/euc-jp.ucm . the sole reason euc

RE: Collation - last character?

At 09:01 AM 3/19/02 -0800, Yves Arrouye wrote: >TUS does not prevent anyone to put noncharacter code points in Unicode >strings. As a matter of fact, p. 23 of TUS 3.0 reads "U+ is reserved for >private program use as a sentinel or other signal." I would expect this to >hold true for the noncha

ConScript (was: Re: Private Use Agreements and Unapproved Characters)

Curtis Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> You are not going to find many fonts on the Web that contain PUA >> characters. > > Actually, every Truetype font with Windows Symbol encoding uses the PUA. Good point. >> Personally, I'd like to see a font that covers all or most >> of the ConScript c

RE: Collation - last character?

> Markus Scherer wrote: > > How about U+10? > > It is a non-character, which gives it a high (unassigned > > character) weight in the UCA. It is the highest code point = > > "the last character". > > That is definitely not what I was looking for. It is an illegal codepoint, > while I was look

Re: Browser support

Hello Stuart Somer, you wrote: > I find many recomendations not to use unicode characters for entities > like em dashes trademark symbols because there is poor browser support. According to HTML 4, , you may use any NCR (numeric character refer

RE: Ladino Transliteration Of Hebrew Letters

On 19-Mar-02 Robert wrote: > **The needed characters {b-bar} and {k-bar} both need to be proposed into > Unicode, along with the {y-breve} that Latin and a few other languages use. = U+0180 = = U+0079 U+0306 , however, might be missing. This one is quite frequent also in Semitic linguistic

Re: Synthetic scripts

At 22:28 -0500 2002-03-18, ÇÎÅZÅZÅZÅZ ÇÎÅZÅZÅZ wrote: >>John Jenkins wrote: >> >> > Basically, the place where I personally would draw the line is between > > having a body of people (size left vague) who want to interchange data in >> > the script, or if there is a historic body of literature

Re: Private Use Agreements and Unapproved Characters

At 08:59 PM 3/18/02, Doug Ewell wrote: >You are not going to find many fonts on the Web that contain PUA >characters. Actually, every Truetype font with Windows Symbol encoding uses the PUA. >Personally, I'd like to see a font that covers all or most >of the ConScript characters, but that seems