Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> And the Word Court rules:
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/01/001wordcourt.htm
>
> And since I'd rather be associated with the likes of Einstein,
> Flaubert, and van der Rohe than Nitze, Reagan, and Perot, maybe
> I'll shift back to "God is in the details".
O
At 08:46 PM 7/26/02 -0700, Addison Phillips [wM] wrote:
>That does leave you with the must less happy problem of finding a platform
>with user defined locales (approximately no platforms conveniently do this).
What's wrong with Linux's user defined locales? I attach one
in actual use; while the
I dunno, Curtis. This sounds less like a job for Unicode and more like a job for other
mechanisms, such as user-defined locales.
Granted that keyboarding is a pain if you choose a character collection that is not
represented by a convenient keyboard. But the real issues appear to be mostly in
James Kass wrote:
> Isn't this kind of a Catch-22 for anyone contemplating script reform?
> Do we discourage people from altering their own scripts? Should we?
> It is suggested that scripts can be "alive" in the same sense that
> languages are "alive"; changes (which are part of life) just occur
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> I cand e-mail you from my phone - it's too painful and too limited to
> carry this conversation at length, besides the phone's not subscribed to
> this list, but phones are *NOT* closed systems.
Would complex rendering take place in the phone? Or would that happen in
the
The correct Einsteinian German appears to be:
Der liebe Gott steckt im Detail (cf. http://www.benecke.com/einsteinprogramm.html)
(and there are German alternatives such as Gott lebt im Detail)
and the satanic alternate is:
Der Teufel liegt im Detail (very common, actually, but maybe just cal
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So I would like to get a clarification of MichKa's claim that:
>
> > Sinnathurai Srivas is a member of INFITT's WG02 (Working Group 02,
Unicode
> > Tamil) who has been long advocating changes to Unicode Tamil that would
be
> > done in a "linear" mann
Ummm. Logical order, visual order, aural order, phonemic order,
linear order... We are in danger of losing track of the ground we
stand on.
Logical order versus visual order, in the Unicode Standard,
refers to the relationship between backing store order and
display order. The main issue is for b
Hi Folks,
It's getting to be that time, the September Unicode will be upon us soon.
You have just a couple of
weeks to snag the early-bird registration and hotel rates. The highlights
follow...check it all out on
the web site.
Many thanks and hope to see you soon!
Lisa
***
Martin Kochanski wrote,
> Isn't this sort if thing *exactly* what the private use
> area is for?
The PUA can certainly be used for trial runs and experiments,
including script reforms where appropriate.
> There aren't that many mobile phone manufacturers, and they
> should be able to agree
From: "James Kass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The changes advocated seem to be more related to the Tamil script
> itself rather than the way that it is encoded.
The changes for "Linear Tamil" are to leave the encoding exactly the way
they have but to change all of the rules for re-ordering such that
Michael Kaplan wrote,
> > The changes advocated seem to be more related to the Tamil script
> > itself rather than the way that it is encoded.
>
> The changes for "Linear Tamil" are to leave the encoding exactly the way
> they have but to change all of the rules for re-ordering such that the
>
Two earlier responses in this thread might seem to single-out
Michael Kaplan and Doug Ewell.
This wasn't my intent. Michael Kaplan is well versed in Tamil
encoding issues and display problems, but either he has
misunderstood some aspects of Sinnathurai Srivas' proposed
script reform, or I ha
On 07/26/2002 12:29:53 AM "James Kass" wrote:
>> Your proposed characters must first achieve popular usage before they
>> will be encoded.
>
>Isn't this kind of a Catch-22 for anyone contemplating script reform?
Of course. Part of the problem is what the status of the proposed script
reform. Is
On 07/26/2002 07:23:21 AM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:
>2) script reform is beyond the scope of both Unicode and INFITT's WG02.
I agree (at least wrt Unicode -- I don't know enough about what WG02's
mandate is).
>> This was discussed a while ago on the OpenType list. If an approach
>>
At 05:59 26/07/02 -0700, James Kass wrote:
>
>Martin Kochanski wrote,
>
>> As a software publisher, I would argue that the rendering and
>> behaviour of a given Unicode code point should *never* change:
>> literally never, even if the script is long dead, no-one can read
>> it, and the glyph ha
FYI
- Forwarded by Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 07/26/2002 10:18 AM
-
The message below was posted on the Ventura newsgroup on the web. I found
the info about quotation marks in European languages interesting.
--Darrel
Hello,
I started to collect the quote usage of various langu
From: "James Kass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The changes to the script are relevant to the linear Tamil issue
> because the changes to the script include the notion that Tamil
> is to be written linearly. The changes (modernizations) to some
> of the glyphs are not relevant to the linear Tamil issue
James Kass wrote:
> I only got into this because I didn't want anyone to think that
> we were implying that Tamil writing was currently illogical
> because of an unfortunate choice in jargon.
>
>
> (To me, any encoding which isn't visual isn't logical.
This is like talking about "legal" or "le
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I agree. Instead of talking of visual order, we should instead talk of
> Western-Imperialist order.
We do not need to redefine terms here. The term "logical order" is refering
to a backend store that matches the way a user of the script might read
it/wri
James Kass scripsit:
>
> (To me, any encoding which isn't visual isn't logical. And, so-
> called visual Hebrew isn't visual at all, it's backwards because
> when you scan Hebrew with your vision, your eyes are
> supposed to be travelling RTL. When Hebrew is written,
> it is written RTL. When
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >2) script reform is beyond the scope of both Unicode and INFITT's WG02.
>
> I agree (at least wrt Unicode -- I don't know enough about what
> WG02's mandate is).
To support the use of Unicode for Tamil, suggesting both changes/additions
to Unicode (when required) and
On Fri, 26 Jul 2002, Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> We do not need to redefine terms here. The term "logical order" is refering
> to a backend store that matches the way a user of the script might read
> it/write it/think about it.
While we're at it, would anyone please consider replacing the
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> [snip]
>
> And the devil is in the details. Looking a bit at your suggestions,
> for example:
> [snip]
>
Friday, July 26, 2002
No, "God is in the details" Ludiwg Mies van der Rohe (1886-1969) said. And
Actually, (or so I have heard) it is "God dwells in the details of our
work", I have seen it attributed to Einstein, more generally to shakers,
and others. So Ludwig might have been quoting others.
"James E. Agenbroad" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
>
The way these concepts were explained to me was as "visual order" (the order
as you see it with your eyes, as defined by the writing system) and "aural
order" (the order you hear it with your ears, as defined by pronunciation of
the spoken language).
Neither of these is more or less logi
[Tex Texin]
> Actually, (or so I have heard) it is "God dwells in the details of our
> work", I have seen it attributed to Einstein, more generally to shakers,
> and others. So Ludwig might have been quoting others.
[Ken Whistler]
> > > And the devil is in the details. Looking a bit at your sug
27 matches
Mail list logo
