Michael Everson wrote as follows.
I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
nothing to do with character encoding.
I have now had the
Daniel Yacob wrote as follows.
In the ethiopic case it is 1362 (four dots like ::) interlaced with 5 red
dots
in the sign of the cross that is the most common. This is 9 dots
altogether
and at a glance looks like a colorful paragraph separator. Any punctuation
or numeral may receive extra
Michael Everson wrote:
Marco said:
MC However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
MC signs with the same design can mean different things if
painted in
MC different colors.
Has it? Reference?
The best I can come up with from my private library is a single paragraph
This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in
ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429.
I also see that the ISO 8859-1 mapping published on unicode.org maps
these characters into the Unicode characters with the same code
points.
I now see that
At 07:57 +0100 2002-06-27, William Overington wrote:
Michael Everson wrote as follows.
I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, John Cowan wrote:
I looked at the image (less than ideal) at
http://www.fortknoxxjewelry.com/store/myname/images/1177_l.jpg and fed
it through the Gimp to strip out color information (specifically,
Image/Colors/Desaturate followed by Image/Colors/Threshold, taking the
127
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, pictures have colour, but pictures are not characters. Not even
pictures of things that represent characters.
Depends on what you consider a character. In my inexpert opinion, any sign
which can be used in a way reminiscent of a character (i.e.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in
ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429.
I also see that the ISO 8859-1 mapping published on unicode.org maps
these characters
Stefan Persson wrote:
From: Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or 127 ASCII code points?
Or ca. 9000 JIS code points?
They are already encoded, aren't they?
No, they aren't. Unicode encodes the same characters encoded by ASCII (at
the same code points) and the same characters encoded by
Lars Marius Garshol scripsit:
This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in
ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429.
It would be more precise to say that insofar as any C1 characters are
used at all, they are most often given the
I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:
Michael Everson wrote:
Marco said:
MC However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
MC signs with the same design can mean different things if
painted in
MC different colors.
Has it? Reference?
The best I can come up with from my
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in
IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series.
6249 isn't the character-set definition - it's the control-sequences.
8859 corresponds to character-set definitions.
(I assume
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 11:59:14AM +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
This list has previously told me that the characters 0x80 - 0x9F in
ISO 8859-1 are a particular set of control characters from ISO 6429.
[snip]
I now see that ISO
On 06/27/2002 01:57:01 AM William Overington wrote:
It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit
of
that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner
of items for human and computer communication.
It may so seem to you, but this definitely
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 08:03:05AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
What people usually use is ISO 6429, this is eg what is used in
IETF charset definitions for the iso-8859 series.
6249 isn't the character-set definition - it's the
Marco Cimarosti marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it wrote:
But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But
this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not
used to encode Braille in Unicode, but rather to encode commands
to be sent to Braille printers
Doug Ewell scripsit:
And then there's Grade
2 Braille, which completely breaks the simple cipher model.
Not really: it is just enciphered code. Similarly, in the flag code
we can encode the phrase I require a pilot as G, or I am in distress
as NC, and then encipher these (one-to-one) using
Interestingly, once you have chromatic capabilities, you can encode
Braille as a single character with all dots, and apply coloring, to each
dot as needed, of the background color to eliminate dots, and foreground
color(s) to present them, to make all 256 combinations.
For that matter, you can
- Original Message -
From: Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Stefan Persson' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Sampo
Syreeni' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic
Tex wrote:
Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding,
UniCharacter!. Just color what you need.
Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds of problems.
We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again, because users
would have all
-Original Message-
From: William Overington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and
the spirit of
that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to
denote all manner
of items for human and computer communication.
Given
Doug Ewell wrote:
I think the reason the Braille block is legitimate, and doesn't fall
into the codes-for-codes trap you described, is that it is a flexible
cipher rather than a fixed one. The same Braille symbol can stand for
different letters depending on which script, or even which
Good point about resolution.
I just realized an even bigger problem- steganography.
Embedding data in pictures. By changing the colors associated with a
character string, someone could spell out a completely different
message.
My Hello world could be changed to Bite me. It might not even be
Stefan Persson wrote:
I see. How do I propose millions of Unicode code points for
inclusion in the stantard? ;-)
Just put them in the PUA, publish them, and wait: sooner or later, they'll
get promoted. ;-}
_ Marco
Pointed Hebrew is used in dictionaries and books for learners and
young children. Also the Hebrew Bible is generally pointed and
cantillated.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:54:00PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 03:43:30PM +0200, Keld J?rn Simonsen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 08:03:05AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
What people usually use is ISO 6429,
Folks, WAIT A BIT.
This method, as tempting as it is, would make all text not accessible for
people with visual disabilities. And, as you all know, Section 508 requires
that any electronic information from the government (e.g. web site) must be
accessible to people with disabilities.
Here
Sampo Syreeni recently said:
National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't.
They stand for characters and I believe in some variations for entire
well-known concepts. They are utilized in a way we would expect characters
to be. I don't think the entire collection
In the handwritten form, could you please say whether the adding of the red
increases the width of the area needed to represent the character?
yes, absolutely, at least by the width of two dots.
Also, when handwritten, does the scribe have a black pen in one hand and a
red pen in the other
29 matches
Mail list logo
