> My first answer to my correspondent was "just use Roman h."
That would be my suggestion, too. It is available now -- it matches
current practice, and requires no further action.
> A program that was sorting text, or trying to determine what script
> a word was written in, would get confused
You recently said:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 09:30:10 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I think that it is intended to use the eqivalent Tibetian character sequences
> to
> > produce the various types of Biruga, rather than MFVSs.
>
> Sound eminently sensible and Unicode-like to use Tibetan
On 2002.12.18, 10:11, Marco Cimarosti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of the three scripts you mentioned, only (modern) Yi is a genuine
> syllabary, in the same sense as Japanese kana or Linear B are.
And Cherokee, to name just one more. (I was quite glad reading this
message from Marco, because I t
While persuing a different subject, I come across the notion that in
late-1930ies Karelian cyrillic orthography (or at least in one of its
versions), the equivalent of latin "jä" is rendered as an umlauted
U+044F.
This makes sence considering the political linguistical goals of the
successive cyri
On 2002.12.18, 13:16, Andrew C. West <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> decomposing U+00FC (LATIN SMALL LETTER U WITH DIAERESIS) into U+0075
> (LATIN SMALL LETTER U) and U+00A8 (DIAERESIS).
Am I just clueless or it should be U+0308 instead of U+00A8? (Checks
U0080.pdf...) Hm, even Homer dozed sometimes
Marco,
I agree. I did some basic design work on an Ethiopian system and it was
decided to follow the same implementation system as Thai. We don't encode
every possible Thai glyph.
We felt that if it were ever Unicode encoded we needed to use the decomposed
characters rather than decomposing the
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 06:00:42 -0800 (PST), "Kent Karlsson" wrote:
> Are you saying that the reading (as in pronouncing) order for the letters does
> not actually match the storage order (which I supposed was to be "logical"
> order).
> Similarly, are you saying that for collation order (dictionarie
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Andrew C. West wrote:
> > If anyone thinks that a mapping table would be
> > useful as a weapon in the fight against the Chinese proposal,
> > I would be happy to provide one.
>
> Do you have the relevant data? As I said, so far I found little or not
Andrew C. West wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:59:08 -0800 (PST), Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> > Do you have the relevant data? As I said, so far I found
> little or nothing
> > about "BrdaRten" or about the "Founders System" mentioned
> by Ken Whistler.
>
> Don't need anything more than the cod
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:54:11 -0800 (PST), "Andrew C. West" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:59:08 -0800 (PST), Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> > Do you have the relevant data? As I said, so far I found little or nothing
> > about "BrdaRten" or about the "Founders System" mentioned by Ken Whistler.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 04:59:08 -0800 (PST), Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Do you have the relevant data? As I said, so far I found little or nothing
> about "BrdaRten" or about the "Founders System" mentioned by Ken Whistler.
Don't need anything more than the code charts given in n2558.pdf - it's simpl
Andrew C. West wrote:
> If anyone thinks that a mapping table would be
> useful as a weapon in the fight against the Chinese proposal,
> I would be happy to provide one.
Do you have the relevant data? As I said, so far I found little or nothing
about "BrdaRten" or about the "Founders System" men
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Andrew C. West wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:20:00 -0800 (PST), Michael Everson wrote:
ME> These 950 syllables are insufficient to express anything but
ME> newspaper and bureaucratic Tibetan.
ACW> everything, and if the proposal were to be accepted, the existing Tibetan
A
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 02:10:13 -0800 (PST), Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> 2. Come up with a precise machine-readable mapping file between
> BrdaRten encoding to *decomposed* Unicode Tibetan, possibly accompanied by a
> sample conversion application.
The mapping is simple, and given a mapping table
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 01:20:00 -0800 (PST), Michael Everson wrote:
> These 950 syllables are insufficient to express anything but
> newspaper and bureaucratic Tibetan.
To be fair to the Chinese, this is simply not true. Not only is this set
(together with the basic letters already encoded at U+0F4
John Hudson wrote:
> The Ethiopic script is *not* made up of sub-syllabic units:
> the syllable is
> the minimum unit of writing. The same is true to Yi and the Canadian
> Aboriginal Syllabics. The fact that Ethiopic has recently been input
> phonetically should not lead to confusion about the
On 12/17/2002 11:08:59 PM David Starner wrote:
>I've only seen one request for more Ethiopic
>characters, a good sign that the right choice was made.
There are still new Ethiopic characters being invented (hence there will be
more proposals), but it was still the right choice to treat these the
17 matches
Mail list logo
