Philippe Verdy wrote on 06/28/2003 02:48:01 AM:
> If the user strikes the two keys and , the input method
> for Traditional Hebrew will generate
That requires* an input method that is aware of the input context (or of
what has already been input -- but awareness of context is far more
reliabl
Why the moderator?
As far as I know _every_ member of the list can do that for you :-)
- Original Message -
From: "akbar pasha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 4:00 AM
Subject: unsubscribe???
> honestly, i know that this is not the procedure to
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
>> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
>> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
>
> No, that was needed for correct Dutch support. Look at the case
> conversion of into
honestly, i know that this is not the procedure to do it. but i dont
know otherwise...i went to unicode.org to unsubscribe, looks like it
ONLY works with outlook(which i dont have) as it has some different way
of unsubscribing (sending an auto email from the default mail acct i
guess)
can the mode
The Ohm sign is canonically equivalent to an Omega (U+03A9), and similar for Kelvin and Angstrom.
They are the same characters in practice (except for 1:1 codepage mappings) and need to be treated
the same.
From UnicodeData.txt:
2126;OHM SIGN;Lu;0;L;03A9N;OHM;;;03C9;
212A;KELVIN SIGN;Lu;0;L;0
Markus,
This is interesting. Do you know why Unicode decided that these
signs should have case-ness (?)? The lower case of the Ohm sign does not
make sense to me. What could that mean?
> From: Markus Scherer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:30 PM
> To: unicode
> Subjec
FYI
I wrote a little program for other standards activities to check which Unicode characters have
simple lower-/uppercase mappings across UTF-8 length boundaries (0080, 0800, 1).
This is with Unicode 4 data.
I thought some unicode subscribers might be interested in the result.
Best regard
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:09 PM, Pim Blokland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
> all, but now it's there, there's no reason to ignore it when
> refining the rules, to deprecate it practically.
No, that was needed for correct Dutch sup
Pim Blokland wrote:
When putting accents on the ij (which does happen!), the dots must
go. Simple as that.
Where should the accent be placed in that case? Should the accent be
centered over "ij"? Should there be one accent over "i" and then the
same over "j"? Or should the accent only be an ac
Michael Everson schreef:
> I think the answer is, regarding the soft dot property, please
leave
> the ij ligature alone.
And I think not.
When putting accents on the ij (which does happen!), the dots must
go. Simple as that.
Maybe it was a bad idea to include ij as a character in Unicode at
all, bu
On Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:55 PM, Kent Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My feeling about the proposed "Public Review" document should
> > exclude the ligature, waiting for the decision about the new
> > ligature approved in the first rounds by UTC and
> > waiting for approval by ISO JTC.
> > I don't know of any instances where a ij digraph would keep the dots
> > AND get additional accent marks, nor of any where the ij would
> > appear with a dotless i and dotless j and a single dot above,
> > centered between them. Can you give examples?
>
> No of course:
So why do you care?
>
12 matches
Mail list logo