> "Tex" == Tex Texin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tex> I find it very amusing for some reason to think that !!
Tex> represents a click followed by a bang.
Tex> Now if we just had a character to represent an ominous pause to
Tex> go in between... hair space?
Nah. Clearly that would be the s
Periphrasis is always possible, of course; but that doesn't mean that it is desirable.
1. Periphrasis is by definition longer. In a page where you want to present a lot of
information and not have it squeezed out by meta-information, the first paragraph in
my example could read "Seeing things
It would be a nice way to address the issue.
In an ideal world, every computer would have a "last resort" font so that it can
*always* find a glyph for a particular codepoint, and there would then be no need for
any glyph that says "sorry, can't display".
I think you will probably agree that a
Well...
1. Since all existing fonts already display the new character correctly, there would
be no overwhelming need for any font designer to alter any font at all. If they
choose, despite this, to copy their own interpretation of 'missing character' from
Glyph ID zero into the new slot, this
On Friday, August 2, 2002, at 01:24 AM, Martin Kochanski wrote:
> 1. Since all existing fonts already display the new character
> correctly, there would be no overwhelming need for any font designer
> to alter any font at all. If they choose, despite this, to copy their
> own interpretation o
Precisando desenvolver um projeto, localizei os caracteres de
que necessito nas tabelas de código "Latin".
Alguns deles estão na "Latin-1 Supplement", outros na "Latin
Extened-A", outros na "Latin Extened-B" e outros na "Latin Extened Additional".
Mas para utilizá-los, só é possível por "i
Hi all,
I came across the following point in the Unicode FAQ that explains why the
Unicode standard does not contain any characters for digraphs:-
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/ligature_digraph.html#3
I find the comments therein rather perplexing, especially seeing as how if
the digraphic
At 09:17 PM 8/2/02 +0100, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>I find the comments therein rather perplexing, especially seeing as how if
>the digraphic characters were in fact denoted by a singular new glyph, then
>they would certainly have been included.
Then it would be a new character. As it is, it's only
At 11:11 +0100 2002-08-01, Martin Kochanski wrote:
>Otto Stolz suggested U+03A2, which would be equally valid. However,
>U+03A2 is quite obviously the code for GREEK CAPITAL LETTER FINAL
>SIGMA.
Nope. Can't encode a nonexistent letter. Can encode ANYTHING WE WANT
anywhere that's free. Them's
If anyone wants to represent fontless characters and uses anything
other than a kind of Last Resort font they are being very silly in my
view. OmniWeb and TextEdit handle these elegantly and helpfully.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
At 11:13 +0200 2002-08-01, Otto Stolz wrote:
>I have selected U+03A2 with care: this code point covers the place
>of a non-existing "Greek capital letter final sigma". I think that
>this code-point -- while, admittedly, unsafe as any other unassigned
>one -- is rather unlikely to get assigned a c
> >Since there are 676 possible digraph combinations,
>
> Stop being so ethnocentric. The extended Latin alphabet alone is much
> larger than 26 characters, and that ignores all the Cyrillic languages,
> some of which were probably written with digraphs.
And the problem doesn't stop with digraph
At 04:19 PM 02-08-02, David Starner wrote:
>Stop being so ethnocentric. The extended Latin alphabet alone is much
>larger than 26 characters, and that ignores all the Cyrillic languages,
>some of which were probably written with digraphs.
And trigraphs and, in at least one Cyrillic transcription
> Nope. Can't encode a nonexistent letter. Can encode ANYTHING WE WANT
> anywhere that's free. Them's the rules.
Oh, I don't know about that. How about U+1247, which by the structure
of the table would be for ETHIOPIC SYLLABLE QWA (Q-WA), except that that
value is already logically drained by
At 04:48 PM 02-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>... and some extreme case
>orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Language must belong to
> At 04:48 PM 02-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> >... and some extreme case
> >orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
>
> Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
If I recall correctly, that one was a technical orthography
of Nama -- but I can't track down an online
As I was saying about Hawaiian and 2-letter codes...
- Forwarded by Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 08/02/2002 03:24 PM -
Håvard Hjulstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
08/02/2002 06:04 AM
Please respond to havard
To: "IETF-languages list" <[
At 06:04 PM 8/2/02 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>In the meantime, for a sampler of some of the wild multigraphs
>used in various orthographies for Khoi and San languages, try
>
>http://www.african.gu.se/khsnms.html
>
>Examples: "'//Ng" <-- there's a pentagraph for you.
>
>"//Kx'", "//Kh'" and s
On 08/02/2002 08:04:27 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>P.S. The San peoples are now apparently vigorously objecting
>to being lumped with the Khoi peoples as "Khoisan". See:
>
>http://allafrica.com/stories/200104270244.html
I noticed in the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, the line wrapped in
On 08/02/2002 03:17:56 PM "Sean B. Palmer" wrote:
>If anyone has any comments on this, or any references to previous
>discussions, they would be gladly recieved.
Any discussion of encoding Latin digraphs as units makes an unvalidated assumption that there is some benefit to be gained. We've gone
20 matches
Mail list logo
