From: Herman Ranes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My observation is that Opera6.0, MSIE6.0 and Mozilla0.9.8(Win)
interpret not only Win-1252 -tagged 8-bit HTML as Win-1252, but that
they interpret also US-ASCII and ISO-8859-1 -tagged 8-bit HTML as
Win-1252.
It is highly doubtful that they are supporting
Ah, Ohta-san. We can always count on him.
(His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
confronted with Chinese writing styles, even
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
(His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
confronted with Chinese writing styles, even when being
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether
to
draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
confronted with Chinese writing styles, even when
See below. The fun hasn't stopped yet!
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 7:58 am
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
(His point is that if you have kanji in an IDN you can't tell whether to
draw it the Japanese way or the Chinese way, of course, and since
civilization as we know it depends on Japanese people never being
confronted
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 08:19 AM, John Cowan wrote:
I am now developing a patch for Mozilla that causes it to display all
URLs in Fraktur fonts only.
No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
==
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Curtis Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 20 mars 2002 02:47
Subject: 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
At 09:11 3/20/2002, John H. Jenkins wrote:
This doesn't reflect, however, what actual Japanese users want (or, at
least, would find acceptable). The correct algorithm is to display kanji
with Japanese glyphs if at all possible.
Again, the typographic tradition in Japan is to write kanji with
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 09:44 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Only slightly more seriously, I imagine it would be possible to examine
the top-level domain and:
(1) if .cn, .tw, .hk, .sg, .mo -- display URL with Chinese glyphs
(2) if .jp -- display URL with Japanese glyphs
(3) otherwise
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
Good idea, but the wrong spirit. Fraktur is to Traditional Han as
Antiqua is to Simplified Han.
--
John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,
At 09:11 AM 3/20/02, John H. Jenkins wrote:
This doesn't reflect, however, what actual Japanese users want (or, at
least, would find acceptable). The correct algorithm is to display kanji
with Japanese glyphs if at all possible.
Again, the typographic tradition in Japan is to write kanji with
-Original Message-
From: Curtis Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII in
fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either
the system
font or the default browser font. It seems to me that an
average
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 11:00 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII in
fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either the system
font or the default browser font. It seems to me that an average Japanese
user
BTW, for those of you who don't know me, this was not a statement of my
own outlook, it's a summary of the outlook of a big group of objectors.
-Original Message-
From: Suzanne M. Topping
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 1:42 PM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Subject: RE: Talk about
David Hopwood said:
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.
But it is
Doug Ewell said:
The supplementary planes
have existed since 1993,
Not quite right. Technically, the approval and publication of Amendment
1 (UTF-16) to 10646:1993 took place in 1996. The formal proposal which
turned into Amendment 1 was submitted by Mark Davis to WG2 in February,
1994. It
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 03:55 , John H. Jenkins wrote:
There's an issue because Ohta-san (and a few others) hate Unicode with
a passion. This is an old argument which has been made by a number of
Japanese for years, insulted that a bunch of American engineers presume
to design a
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 01:44 , Doug Ewell wrote:
Only slightly more seriously, I imagine it would be possible to examine
the top-level domain and:
(1) if .cn, .tw, .hk, .sg, .mo -- display URL with Chinese glyphs
(2) if .jp -- display URL with Japanese glyphs
(3) otherwise punt
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote:
Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer
versions ... ?
Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where
quotes should be, and it was easier to change it at the browser level than
the
Dan Kogai scripsit:
And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
is more appropriate?
Traditional and Simplified characters are *not* unified in Unicode,
(BTW, this should go on the list of Unicode Myths),
so that would be up to the author, not the browser.
--
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
Isn't this kind of attitude
that makes people like Ohta-san angry?
I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always remember that
they're coming from someone who
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 06:12:33AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
is more appropriate?
Not a problem, as Unicode doesn't unify them.
HTML and XML at least has a salvation to this; lang= attribute in the
tag is exactly for
Dan How can you be so sure that Most Japanese disagree? Have you
Dan actually taken a poll? I happen to be a Japanese and even I am not
Dan sure how much beloved or hated Unicode is here. Isn't this kind of
Dan attitude that makes people like Ohta-san angry?
Having
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Dan Kogai wrote:
How can you be so sure that Most Japanese disagree? Have you
actually taken a poll? I happen to be a Japanese and even I am not sure
how much beloved or hated Unicode is here.
Point well taken. I'll amend my statement to
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Dan Kogai" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: den 20 mars 2002 23:02
Subject: Re: Talk about Unicode Myths...
Dan Kogai:
And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
is more
At 01:02 PM 3/20/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
John H. Jenkins scripsit:
No, no. Convert them into phonetics and write them in Deseret.
Good idea, but the wrong spirit. Fraktur is to Traditional Han as
Antiqua is to Simplified Han.
Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, John Cowan wrote:
Dan Kogai scripsit:
And as for Chinese, how do you tell whether Traditional or Simplified
is more appropriate?
Traditional and Simplified characters are *not* unified in Unicode,
(BTW, this should go on the list of Unicode Myths),
so that
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts from which the
Fraktur forms were evolved this analogy is seriously backwards. Antiqua is
not a simplification of Fraktur, but Fraktur capitals are embellished
versions of handwritten forms based on Latin
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Herman Ranes wrote:
Why did Mozilla introduce this 'sloppy' practice in their newer
versions ... ?
Because its users were getting tired of dealing with little boxes where
quotes should be, and it was
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 06:12:33AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
HTML and XML at least has a salvation to this; lang= attribute in the
tag is exactly for that purpose. Unfortunately lang= attribute is not
very popular yet
IE supports it, and
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 05:55:41AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
To me Unicode Consortium has already showed a big incompetence when it
introduced Surrogate Pair
What would it have done differently? Were you saying that it should
have begun
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:34:53PM -0500, Jungshik Shin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always remember that
they're coming from someone who put forth
On Tue, 19 Mar 2002, Curtis Clark wrote:
3. Hangul in Hangul (is it U+D55C U+AD74?)
No, it's U+D55C U+AE00. The vowel in 'gul' sounds like U+0268 (in IPA).
4. Is Hanja ever written in Hanja in modern Korea?
Yes although not often.
Is it U+D55C U+C790 in Hangul?
Yup, you got this
At 11:55 -0700 2002-03-20, John H. Jenkins wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 11:00 AM, Curtis Clark wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something here. My browsers don't display ASCII
in fraktur, because I have not selected a fraktur font as either
the system font or the default browser font. It
Dan Kogai wrote:
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 03:55 , John H. Jenkins wrote:
There's an issue because Ohta-san (and a few others) hate Unicode with
a passion. ...
Most Japanese disagree with them, ...
How can you be so sure that Most Japanese disagree? Have you
actually
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 06:34:53PM -0500, Jungshik Shin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, David Starner wrote:
I think what makes Ohta-san angry is that the Japanese didn't get to
make Unicode. When reading his complaints, I always remember that
On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 04:21 , Stefan Persson wrote:
And if someone puts a Japanese page on a .cn address, or vice versa...?
Wouldn't it be better to use
META http-equiv=Content-Language content=ja
- and -
META http-equiv=Content-Language content=zh
to distinguish between the two
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Dan Kogai wrote:
How can you be so sure that Most Japanese disagree? Have you
actually taken a poll?
Of course nobody has run an opinion poll among the general populace,
and the results of such a poll would be irrelevant anyway, since
On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 10:26:16AM +0900, Dan Kogai wrote:
SPAN lang=enHello!/SPAN SPAN lang=jaDoumo!/SPAN
The problem is you can't make text/plain to go that way with Unicode
Actually, you can use Plane 14 characters.
because of Character Unification. So far you have to resort to
At 06:15 PM 3/20/02 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
Since Latin majuscules predate the mediaeval manuscripts from which the
Fraktur forms were evolved this analogy is seriously backwards. Antiqua is
not a simplification of Fraktur, but Fraktur capitals are embellished
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Dan Kogai wrote:
The problem is you can't make text/plain to go that way with Unicode
because of Character Unification. So far you have to resort to markups
Heard of (dreaded) plane 14?
and that is the reason I am objecting to Character Unification.
Which
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
Not that simple, even. Some of the base forms of the 'backbone' of Fraktur
capitals are topologically different from the Roman letters. For example, a
true Fraktur A is not a triangle with raised base, but looks like a
squarish U with the top part of the left leg
43 matches
Mail list logo
