I have been watching this thread for some time now, and Doug Newell's
comments have prompted me to add my two cent's worth.
In an effort to unify all character and pictographs, the decision was
made to unify CJK characters by suppressing most variant forms. That
turns out to be the single great
xjliu_ca wrote:
I have searched all the web on IBM about the support of GB18030 in OS
AIX 4.3 and 5, but didn't find anything. I only can see they support
GB2312 and GBK.
Google found something for me:
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/ts/mqseries/support/readme/aix530_read.html
Search for "18030"
-Original Message-
We are now looking to expand the market for this product into
countries such as China. To achieve this I have been informed
we need to enable our application for Double Byte Character
Set (DBCS).
"DBCS" is an old, pre-Unicode term for character sets with Chinese/Japan
Dear I18N experts,
I have searched all the web on IBM about the support of GB18030 in OS
AIX 4.3 and 5, but didn't find anything. I only can see they support
GB2312 and GBK.
I know IBM was one of the pioneer to support GB18030, i.e. their ICU.
But it doesn't make sense their AIX doesn't suppor
I think Doug asked for lightweight. HTML and XML markup aren't
lightweight by any means, although a special purpose plain-text oriented
XML (LTML for language-tagged markup language) might not be that much
more involved than plane 14 tags. It would also have the advantage that
standard XSLT tools c
Paul,
I am forwarding your inquiry to the Unicode list. I hope someone on the
list will be able to address your question.
Regards,
Magda Danish
Administrative Director
The Unicode Consortium
650-693-3921
> -Original Message-
> Date/Time:Wed Nov 13 09:32:39 EST 2002
> Contact:
On 11/13/2002 09:03:26 AM "Dominikus Scherkl" wrote:
>Ok, this is less heavy, but not very much.
>Or what do you think what "weight" in this context means?!?
There is "weight" in terms of bandwidth, but also in terms of mechanisms
needed to interpret markup. It takes a lot more to handle HTML or
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:25:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is this a corollary? It may be the crux of the issue. Tags using plane 14
> characters may be the lightest mechanism around, but does anybody actually
> need to avoid markup that badly?
GNU Libc used them to round-trip ISO-2022-J
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>> 2. What extra processing is necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags that
>> wouldn't be necessary to ignore any other Unicode character(s)?
>
> No extra processing would be necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags that
> wouldn't be necessary to ignore any other Unicode characters.
Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
> Hm. ...<\lang>
> that are 9+7 = 16 characters to indicate the language (and end of tag)
> All of them are ASCII, therefore encoded as 1 byte utf-8 each.
> Plane 14 requires 4 byte utf-8 each, and at least 3 characters
> (two tag-letters and the end-tag) - this is 12 byt
I wrote:
[...]
> A lighter-weight method is not having language tagging at all
> in plain text. This is appropriate in two cases:
>
> 3.a) When you don't language tagging.
[...] ^
Sorry: I meant: "When you don't need...".
_ Marco
Michael Everson wrote:
>> 3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
>> than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is "lightweight" important?)
>
> HTML and XML markup?
and replied:
> Doug was already comparing the plane 14 characters to HTML and XML,
> and clearly considers the lat
Doug Ewell wrote:
> 1. What extra processing is necessary to interpret Plane 14 tags that
> wouldn't be necessary to interpret any other form of tags?
In order for the question to make sense, we should compare plain text with
plain text and rich text with rich text.
1.a) Take plain text: however
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 03:22 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:03:27 -0800 (PST), "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
Nope. We're still doing modern stuff.
Well, there's no rush, just as long as you get round to it sometime
... how
about reserving a plane now anyway ?
Be
Dominikus Scherkl scripsit:
> Or what do you think what "weight" in this context means?!?
I assumed it refers to protocol/parsing complexity. Stripping P14 tags
is done without even a finite-state machine, whereas parsing XML requires
a real parser.
--
Winter: MIT,
Hi.
> > > 3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is
lighter-weight
> > > than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is "lightweight" important?)
> >
> > HTML and XML markup?
>
> Doug was already comparing the plane 14 characters to HTML and XML,
and
> clearly considers the latter to be relatively h
On 11/12/2002 11:50:51 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>1. What extra processing is necessary to interpret Plane 14 tags that
>wouldn't be necessary to interpret any other form of tags?
Obviously, extra processing is needed either way.
>2. What extra processing is necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags t
On 11/13/2002 05:40:53 AM Michael Everson wrote:
>At 21:50 -0800 2002-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>>3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
>>than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is "lightweight" important?)
>
>HTML and XML markup?
Doug was already comparing the plane 14 chara
At 21:50 -0800 2002-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is "lightweight" important?)
HTML and XML markup?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 02:03:27 -0800 (PST), "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
> Nope. We're still doing modern stuff.
>
Well, there's no rush, just as long as you get round to it sometime ... how
about reserving a plane now anyway ?
> All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if there were as many as ten
> th
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Ahem...
>
> The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce that no
> formal decision has been taken regarding the deprecation of
> Plane 14 language tag characters. The period for public review of
> this issue will be extended until February 14, 2003.
Out of curi
21 matches
Mail list logo
