RE: Creating fonts for Akan language

2003-08-12 Thread Kyekyeku.Opoku-Pong
Hello, Thank you all for your answers to my questions on the above topic. They will give me the lead to begin working on my little project. I will get back to you if I get stuck along the way. kyekyeku -Original Message- From: ext Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, Au

Re: Colourful scripts and Aramaic

2003-08-12 Thread Michael Everson
At 18:03 -0400 2003-08-07, Karljürgen Feuerherm wrote: My knowledge of Aramaic script is a little scanty, but my understanding is more or less the same as Peter's. Which leads me to suggest that encoding Aramaic separately would be a bit like encoding Old Akkadian (Cuneiform) separately from Neo

Re: Conflicting principles

2003-08-12 Thread John Jenkins
On Wednesday, August 6, 2003, at 3:53 PM, Peter Kirk wrote: This answer presupposes that there is a well-defined concept of which base character a combining mark belongs to. That is not always true. The particukar combining mark which precipitated the debate may be situated above the gap between

RE: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef

2003-08-12 Thread Kent Karlsson
> > <> > > > > Spams de Philippe Verdy non tolérés: tout message non sollicité sera > > rapporté à son fournisseur de services Internet. > > There was no spam in the message you deleted. This was a > single post to the list, no cross-posting, no advertizing, no > product sold, no money cla

RE: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef

2003-08-12 Thread Jon Hanna
> From: "Jon Hanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Some of these only apply to elements that do not allow any > > character data apart from whitespace to appear directly within them, and > > hence are not an issue here. Some happen at relatively high level of > > processing, e.g. rendering (not parsing) o

RE: Questions on ZWNBS - for line initial holam plus alef

2003-08-12 Thread Kent Karlsson
... > > (them being canonically equivalent)? An invisible combining > character > > does not interfere typographically with anything, it being > invisible! > > The same thing can be said about any inserted invisible character, > combining or not. > > How is: supposed to be different from >

Re: Display of Isolated Nonspacing Marks (was Re: Questions on ZWNBS...)

2003-08-12 Thread Peter Kirk
On 05/08/2003 17:13, Kenneth Whistler wrote: Peter Kirk said: From what Ken says, it sounds like it will be wrong from whenever Unicode 4.0 is officially issued Actually Unicode 4.0 was officially issued on April 17, 2003. What we are waiting on now is for the publication of the text o