Curtis Clark,
> Caviar, 10kg, €FEED
Heh, heh... Don't you mean:
Caviar, Akg, €FEED
;-)
Rick
on 2003-08-20 11:03 Rick McGowan wrote:
Hex doesn't have an independent
existence out in non-computing culture for, e.g., signs in the market place
or monetary values.
Caviar, 10kg, €FEED
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Mockingbird Font Works
Effective immediately and until further notice, Unicode.ORG
will not accept any e-mail larger than 40,000 bytes. This is
to counteract a growing storm of virus-laden e-mails.
Regards,
-- Sarasvati
Ben Dougall wrote about what is used for hex characters:
which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
0x46 and 0x61 - 0x66.
Not in EBCDIC (and other older character sets) they aren't. There are a
lot of
On 20/08/2003 11:23, Rick McGowan wrote:
This notice is relevant to anyone dealing with programming languages, query
specifications, regular expressions, scripting languages, and similar domains.
The Proposed Draft UTR #31: Identifier and Pattern Syntax will be discussed at
the UTC meeting next we
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 07:03 pm, Rick McGowan wrote:
What do hackers with non
Latin-based languages use for hex anyway?
They use 0-9, A-F, and a-f.
which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
This notice is relevant to anyone dealing with programming languages, query
specifications, regular expressions, scripting languages, and similar domains.
The Proposed Draft UTR #31: Identifier and Pattern Syntax will be discussed at
the UTC meeting next week. Part of that document (Section 4) is
> What do hackers with non
> Latin-based languages use for hex anyway?
They use 0-9, A-F, and a-f.
Hex is used mostly by programmers, mostly for computing, and mostly in
programming languages that have the digits and Latin letters built-in, and
that's what compilers expect to see. Hex doesn't
> Jon I was mostly being tongue in cheek and contrasting that relative to
> needing new hex digits, a base change was more likely. However, I wasn't
> saying that a base change is likely.
And I was being tongue in cheek (and ignorant of Ethiopian script) in
suggesting the use of base 256. However
Jon Hanna wrote:
>
> > From a practical standpoint, I think it is more likely that the base will
> > change rather than the hex characters.
> > After all, digits have been constant for a long time, but the base has
> > changed. Initially it was binary, then it was octal, and now hex
> > arithmet
I admit I haven't been able to catch up with the flood of messages on
the
Hebrew list...
> On 15/08/2003 07:57, Paul Nelson (TYPOGRAPHY) wrote:
>
> >>This brings us back to the earlier quesion of whether it is
> >>legitimate to use ZWJ or ZWNJ between combining marks
> >>
> >>
> >
> >It sure
On 20/08/2003 06:45, Jon Hanna wrote:
... The next base to have that quality is base 256,
which would require us to ransack a few different alphabets and then maybe
create a few symbols in order for us to represent it.
No, we could just use Ethiopic. Plenty of characters there. We could
even p
Peter Kirk wrote:
> [...] I guess English legs tended to be longer than Roman
> ones.
Well, if by "English" you mean those Germanic barbarians who invaded
Britannia, I guess that the British mile existed way before they set their
feet on the island...
_ Marco
> From a practical standpoint, I think it is more likely that the base will
> change rather than the hex characters.
> After all, digits have been constant for a long time, but the base has
> changed. Initially it was binary, then it was octal, and now hex
> arithmetic is
> common.
No, first it wa
> > I have no idea whether that's the same conference, but in early 1970's
> >it's also decided that the abbreviation 'GMT' would be deprecated
> >and 'UTC' should be used in its place. ...
There are two subtly different definitions of GMT, one which is synonymous with UTC
and one which differs
On 20/08/2003 04:58, Kent Karlsson wrote:
Mark Davis wrote:
awful. At least with inches, feet, and miles, the number of
feet per mile don't
vary depending on which mile one is talking about!
A Danish mile is 7 km, a Swedish mile (a fairly popular
distance measure here) is 10 km, and an En
Mark Davis wrote:
> awful. At least with inches, feet, and miles, the number of
> feet per mile don't
> vary depending on which mile one is talking about!
A Danish mile is 7 km, a Swedish mile (a fairly popular
distance measure here) is 10 km, and an English mile is
a mere 1.6 km (approx.). So y
On 19/08/2003 21:25, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> I have no idea whether that's the same conference, but in early 1970's
>it's also decided that the abbreviation 'GMT' would be deprecated
>and 'UTC' should be used in its place. ...
And to add to confusion, the military also calls it "Zulu time", as
On 19/08/2003 21:25, Jungshik Shin wrote:
I have no idea whether that's the same conference, but in early 1970's
it's also decided that the abbreviation 'GMT' would be deprecated
and 'UTC' should be used in its place. ...
And I thought from the subject line that the Unicode Technical Committee
(
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks, but not good enough.
>
> What guarantee do I have that other Unicode characters will not be added in
> the future which have the property "Hex_Digit"?
One solution is to join the consortium and be able to vote against such a
thing happening!
If it is a conce
20 matches
Mail list logo
