William Overington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following
page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
This is a not too lengthy web page with just Basic Latin
letters. It will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need to add
William Overington wrote on 05/30/2003 03:20:51 AM:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
This is a not too lengthy web page with just Basic Latin letters. It
will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need
Philippe Verdy wrote on 05/30/2003 05:21:58 AM:
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable
Not exactly: they are interoperable by prior agreement between parties.
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
Could letters like « l molle »
(http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphabet http://pages.
infinit.net/hapax/abcbaif.jpg), letters which I believe cannot be
composed from other existing Unicode
Philippe,
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as
it requires proprietary fonts to display them.
People use special fonts all the time. They are more efficient to
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
There is no reason in *principle* why the normative French
names could not also be published on the Unicode website,
but there is no easy way to coordinate that with the data
files of the Unicode Character Database (which are part of
particular versions of the Unicode
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
Could letters like « l molle »
(http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphabet http://pages.
infinit.net/hapax/abcbaif.jpg), letters which I believe cannot be
Ken Whistler posted:
And what I pointed
out earlier is that, in *linguistic* usage, the slashed zero
glyph is clearly an acceptable glyphic variant of the
empty set symbol. So to claim it is completely unrelated
is to manifestly ignore actual practice.
Indeed.
Donald Knuth, a mathematician and
At 12:18 -0400 2003-05-22, Edward C. D. Hopkins wrote:
But toward being back on topic: it is not clear to me if the
roadmap includes or rejects Arsacid Parthian/Parthian Aramaic (and
other descriptive names have been used). Can someone knowledgeable
on inclusion of this Aramaic variant
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ben Dougall scripsit:
why is it not categorised as white space then? or is it? doesn't look
like it is to me, but i'm not sure how to actually find out for sure.
Well, um, it's not white: there is a dot in it.
Not really, in many applications it will
From: Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Private Use Areas are by definition not interoperable and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as
it requires proprietary fonts to display them.
People use special fonts all the
Peter_Constable at sil dot org wrote:
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
requires proprietary fonts to display them.
I think that is overly restrictive. (And if the requirements for the
savvy logo are changed
and clearly
not designed to be used on the web.
Their use in a page to display text clearly does not qualify, as it
requires proprietary fonts to display them.
I think that is overly restrictive. (And if the requirements for the
savvy logo are changed to rule out use of PUA, then I could
[OOOPS! This works better if I set the proper MIME encoding... Sorry]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
This contrasts a lot with the Unicode codepoints assigned to
abstract characters, that are processable out of any
contextual stylesheet, font or markup system, where its only
semantic is in that
Philippe Verdy wrote:
This contrasts a lot with the Unicode codepoints assigned to
abstract characters, that are processable out of any
contextual stylesheet, font or markup system, where its only
semantic is in that case private use with no linguistic
semantic and no abstract character
Philippe Verdy wrote:
May be the PUA allocated spaces could be divided in normative
categories, for example by assigning LTR or RTL base letters in some
areas, diacritics in another large area splitted in 255 subspaces for
combining characters, and symbols or ideographs in another large
area.
Um,
William Overington wrote:
2.. What is the situation if a page is encoded entirely properly as far as,
say, using UTF-8 goes, yet also uses Private Use Area characters?
UTF-8 includes the PUA. It specifies nothing, however, about its contents.
--
Curtis Clark
- Message d'origine -
De : Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even « literal » translations may help disambiguate English forms by the
introduction of prepositions (e.g. variant selector may be
misinterpreted
by a translator unaware of its role as a slighly different selector
(variant
I don't remember seeing mention on this list
that BabelMap now supports Unicode 4.0 (in Planes 0, 1, 2, 14, 15 and 16).
Here's the link: http://tinyurl.com/d26d
Cheers,
Chris Hopkins
Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that if you have a Klingon web site that uses UTF-8
and the PUA with
your own font is very Unicode savvy.
Carl
It's certainly a lot more savvy than using Latin-1 characters to
encode Klingon.
- Chris
- Message d'origine -
De : Philippe Verdy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
Could letters like « l molle »
(http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphabet http://pages.
John Cowan posted:
Not really, in many applications it will translate in one or more dots
just to create a dotted line (notably within layout processors for
publishing). This looks more like a styled thin whitespace, and
semantically it really has this value (the number of dots is not really
William Overington wrote:
1. I tried out the validation procedure on the following page.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/font7007.htm
It will
not validate. It is not clear to me what I need to add to the page to get
it to validate.
RTFM:
Chris,
I think that if you have a Klingon web site that uses UTF-8
and the PUA with
your own font is very Unicode savvy.
Carl
It's certainly a lot more savvy than using Latin-1 characters to
encode Klingon.
If nothing else we need to discourage people from using the Latin-1 code
page
Carl W. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If nothing else we need to discourage people from using the
Latin-1 code
page and a special font to create a code page hack.
Yes, I think that sort of thing should be *explicitly forbidden*
on pages where the Unicode Savvy logo is present (unless they
From: Jim Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: When do you use U+2024 ONE DOT LEADER instead of U+002E FULL STOP?
John Cowan posted:
Not really, in many applications it will translate in one or more dots
just to create a dotted line
Philippe Verdy vamped:
For example I would not be shocked if a text using it was rendered with
a monospaced font, where the base line of the character cell shows
multiple tiny dots, that create a contiguous dotted line when multiple
U+2024 characters (one per display cell) are used
On Friday, May 30, 2003, at 03:07 pm, John Cowan wrote:
Ben Dougall scripsit:
why is it not categorised as white space then? or is it? doesn't look
like it is to me, but i'm not sure how to actually find out for sure.
Well, um, it's not white: there is a dot in it.
i was just querying what
Michael,
As a typesetter on Mac OS X, I see no reason to abandon the use of
the three-dotted horizontal ellipsis character, Ken.
Nor do I. It is fine for ellipses...
And it was encoded for that. But in encodings which don't have
an ellipsis character, it is roughly comparable to a sequence
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That last fact should be taken as a hint that for most
purposes, manual leaders should just be sequences of FULL STOP
characters (as you will see, for instance in the plain text
representations of Internet Drafts or RFCs, for example).
But in any rich
Philippe Verdy continued:
What surprizes me the most in the Unicode spec is that it
both says that its purpose is to create arbitrary length
of leaders
As in plain text, as can be seen in Table of Content listings
in many RFCs, for example. (Which, however, use ASCII 0x2E for the
same
Ken Whistler posted:
U+2025 TWO DOT LEADER is also an XCCS compatibility character.
It corresponds to XCCS 356B/243B (0xEEA3) Leader, two-dot
on an en body *and* to 041B/105B (0x2145) Leader, two-dot
on an em body. The difference in width was considered
a formatting distinction and was unified
I wonder if anyone here has ideas on these matters.
Peter
- Forwarded by Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT on 05/30/2003 10:56 PM
-
I have 3 LinguaLinks lexicons that I have converted into HTML pages - one
for each entry. The languages use non-ANSI characters, so I also did a
Unicode
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:58:53PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the meantime, to get it onto CD, I decided to try and zip all the
files. Turns out almost all the zippers out there DO NOT support Unicode
filenames. Doug Rintoul found WinRAR
(http://www.rarlab.com/rar_archiver.htm) which
From: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy continued:
What surprizes me the most in the Unicode spec is that it
both says that its purpose is to create arbitrary length
of leaders
As in plain text, as can be seen in Table of Content listings
in many RFCs, for example.
Investigating some fonts, I found in a version of Adobe Garamond Pro
the U+2024 ONE DOT LEADER glyph being a dot symmetrically preceded
and followed by a tiny space.
In the same font, the U+2026 HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS glyph has a tiny
space (smaller than in the U+2024 glyph) before each of the three
Am Samstag, 31. Mai 2003 um 05:58 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Pso ...
Pso Everything works very well except that I cannot burn the files onto a CD
Pso because of the unicode values in the filenames. Roxio and Nero CD-burners
Pso don't accept some of the higher values found in the file names ...
I
This question of non-Ascii filenames is a real problem : hardly any
software out there can cope with this.
I did not know of RAR, but have given it a try. Even here there is a
serious problem, because if the filename is non-Ascii the name of the
compressed file comes out as _.rar, with as
38 matches
Mail list logo
