On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:14AM -0800,
Barry Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
Actually, it is not Unicode which is nt mature enough. It is SMTP,
the core mail transport protocol. It is not 8 bit clean. It is very
clear in the RFCs that only 7bit data is
I don't understand what you meant by Unicode not being
mature enough to support multilingual emails.
Maybe the argument is simply that there are not enough email agents that
can render Tamil properly from Unicode-encoded text, and that email
rarely has a useful life that justifies pain
John Hudson wrote:
At 03:09 PM 12/16/2002, Eric Muller wrote:
In order to convert any Devanagari font to be rendered in
the same way,
May be Sunil is just asking for a conversion of data,
presumably from
ISCII to Unicode.
Ah, yes, this is possible. I'm so used to people asking the
At 18:43 -0800 2002-12-15, Doug Ewell wrote:
One classic case of letters being unified across scripts is Kurdish,
which uses Latin Q and W in an otherwise all-Cyrillic alphabet.
Which is not so smart, as has been pointed out by many. Consider that
even CYRILLIC SOFT SIGN has a Latin clone:
At 07:47 -0800 2002-12-13, Andrew C. West wrote:
I have just noticed that the Chinese government have presented a proposal to
encode 956 BrdaRten characters in the BMP. See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2558.pdf
Would I be correct in believing that there is no chance of these
Dear all,
Barry Caplan had written:
SMTP [...] is not 8 bit clean. It is very
clear in the RFCs that only 7bit data is allowed over the wire.
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
All these extensions are referenced in the same RFC, 2821, which is
the authoritative one about SMTP.
As of November
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:28:00PM +0100,
Otto Stolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 65 lines which said:
As of November 2002, RFC 2821 is still a Proposed Standard, and RFC 821
is the Standard Protocol (cf. http://rfc.sunsite.dk/rfc/rfc3300.html).
For those on the mailing list not
On 16/12/2002 22:02:36 Magda Danish (Unicode) wrote:
I have a data in devanagri true type font i want to convert
this data into mangal unicode.
Sunil,
For Windows or Mac use: If you want to convert data from one encoding to
Unicode, one option is to look at the free TECkit package. There
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 02:25:13 -0800 (PST), Thomas Chan wrote:
What edition of the _Kangxi Zidian_ are you using that gives explicit
Mandarin readings like yi4, or are you interpreting the fanqie notation
yourself? I use the 1958 edition, 1997 2nd printing published by
Zhonghua, ISBN
Bob Hallissy wrote:
NB: One of the complexities you may run into, and which will limit your
options, is that your encoding may store text in a different order than
Unicode requires. If this is the case, TECkit can do the rearrangement for
you but I'm not sure ICU will easily do that. Certainly
On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Andrew C. West wrote:
I have just noticed that the Chinese government have presented a proposal to
encode 956 BrdaRten characters in the BMP. See
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2558.pdf
Would I be correct in believing that there is no chance of these precomposed
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:28:00PM +0100,
Otto Stolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
I have seen many messages, originally in ISO-8859-1-encoded French,
that got the high-bit of every accented character chopped off, thus
replacing é with i, î
Jungshik Shin wrote:
Is there any opentype/AAT font for Tibetan? Do Uniscribe, Pango,
ATSUI, and Graphite support them if there are opentype Tibetan fonts?
In addition to the principle of character encoding, the best practical
counterargument would come from a demonstration that Unicode
At 10:52 -0500 2002-12-17, Jungshik Shin wrote:
I sincerely hope the proposed character set won't become a second case
of Hangul precomposed syllables albeit in a scale about 10 times smaller.
It'd be interesting to see how South Korea will vote on this. It may
not be easy to vote against it
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 08:45:05 -0800 (PST), Jungshik Shin wrote:
Is there any opentype/AAT font for Tibetan? Do Uniscribe, Pango,
ATSUI, and Graphite support them if there are opentype Tibetan fonts?
In addition to the principle of character encoding, the best practical
counterargument would
At 10:34 AM 12/17/2002 +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
There are various extensions and kluges described in various RFCs
(ESMTP, MIME, etc. )
All these extensions are referenced in the same RFC, 2821, which is
the authoritative one about SMTP. I do not know any mainstream SMTP
server which
Jungshik Shin wrote:
[...]
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2558.pdf
[...]
Is there any opentype/AAT font for Tibetan? Do Uniscribe, Pango,
ATSUI, and Graphite support them if there are opentype Tibetan fonts?
In addition to the principle of character encoding, the best practical
At 7:32 PM +0100 12/17/02, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Once the Tibetan BrdaRten characters are encoded
in BMP, many current systems supporting ISO/IEC10646 will enable Tibetan
processing without major modification.
There was an earlier proposal by the Chinese for a pre-composed
Tibetan set
At 19:32 +0100 2002-12-17, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
Tibetan BrdaRten characters are structure-stable characters widely
used in education, publication, classics documentation including Tibetan
medicine. The electronic data containing BrdaRten characters are
estimated beyond billions. Once the
At 11:37 -0800 2002-12-17, Carl W. Brown wrote:
Marco,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for Ethiopic.
Heavens, why?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Strangely Peter Lofting didn't say this, since he was one of its original
developers, but there is also a (now) free Tibetan Language Kit for the Mac
at
http://www.otani.ac.jp/cri/twrp/TLK/index.html
which forms stacking characters based upon single characters.
Martin Heijdra
- Original
Carl W. Brown wrote:
Marco,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for
Ethiopic.
Was that my fault? I'm not even a member of Unicode!
_ Marco :-)
No strangeness: I was just taking it for granted that this resource
is well known and in this case off topic as the question was about
OpenType/AAT fonts for Tibetan, wheras the Tibetan Language Kit is a
Worldscript 8-bit implementation with no smarts in the fonts it uses
(The itl5 resource
Michael Everson wrote:
What the encoding of a set of brDa rTen precomposed syllables would
do would be to restrict the Tibetans to this set, to which they have
been restricted by the proprietary Founder software used in China.
These 950 syllables are insufficient to express anything but
Marco,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for Ethiopic.
Carl
Peter Lofting asked:
Presumedly the present proposal of 900+ stacks is a maturation of the
same system. And the claim for universality is based on it being able
to typeset everything they have published to-date.
It is based on the Founders system software, as Michael mentioned.
The
Michael,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for Ethiopic.
Heavens, why?
I assume that you are being tongue-in-cheek. If not:
Since you key in syllables as consonant+vowel combinations you can keep the
encoding under 256 characters like most other languages with
Marco commented:
Another key point, IMHO, is verifying the following claim contained in the
proposal document:
Tibetan BrdaRten characters are structure-stable characters widely
used in education, publication, classics documentation including Tibetan
medicine. The electronic data
At 13:25 -0800 2002-12-17, Carl W. Brown wrote:
Since you key in syllables as consonant+vowel combinations
Inputting is unrelated to the encoding, and it is conceivable that a
non-alphabetic input method could exist for Ethiopic.
you can keep the encoding under 256 characters
There is
At 13:53 -0800 2002-12-17, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
The question for Unicoders is whether introduction of significant
normalization problems into Tibetan (for everyone) is a worthwhile tradeoff
for this claimed legacy ease of transition for one system, when it is
clear that all existing legacy
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 13:53 -0800 2002-12-17, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
The question for Unicoders is whether introduction of significant
normalization problems into Tibetan (for everyone) is a worthwhile
tradeoff
for this claimed legacy ease of transition for one system,
At 16:12 -0800 2002-12-17, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
Everyone here KNOWS this. What Ken was pointing out is that not only will it
create such problems, but it will not solve the problem that they claim it
will. It was an additional reason to say no, and one they might be forced to
At 01:32 PM 12/17/2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter Lofting asked:
Presumedly the present proposal of 900+ stacks is a maturation of the
same system. And the claim for universality is based on it being able
to typeset everything they have published to-date.
It is based on the Founders
On 12/17/2002 09:52:18 AM Jungshik Shin wrote:
Is there any opentype/AAT font for Tibetan? Do Uniscribe, Pango,
ATSUI, and Graphite support them if there are opentype Tibetan fonts?
I know that Chris Fynn has been working on a Tibetan font, but can't
comment on progress. OpenType tables for
On 12/16/2002 05:09:04 PM Eric Muller wrote:
May be Sunil is just asking for a conversion of data, presumably from
ISCII to Unicode.
Or perhaps from one of a variety of non-standard Devanagari encodings.
- Peter
---
At 01:25 PM 12/17/2002 -0800, Carl W. Brown wrote:
Michael,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for Ethiopic.
Heavens, why?
I assume that you are being tongue-in-cheek. If not:
One of the issues with using a precomposed encoding instead of a decomposed
encoding is
At 01:25 PM 12/17/2002, Carl W. Brown wrote:
Michael,
I was disappointed that Unicode used precomposed encoding for Ethiopic.
Heavens, why?
I assume that you are being tongue-in-cheek. If not:
Since you key in syllables as consonant+vowel combinations you can keep the
encoding under 256
37 matches
Mail list logo
