Nick Nicholas wrote:
> If software can't cope with the PUA, that *is* defeating the purpose
> of the PUA (two people can and should be allowed to exchange data in
> it by agreement, they just shouldn't expect everyone else to
> subscribe to that agreement).
The best explanation of the PUA I've h
.
Rick McGowan wrote,
> Rejection of Klingon has *absolutely* nothing to do with space.
> ...
> *SPACE* is simply not the issue in rejection.
"Space... the final frontier."
> Answer the question "please come up with more than 1 million
> things that need to be encoded?" ...
Easy. Just start w
On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 03:41 Australia/Melbourne, Peter Kirk
wrote:
On 17/10/2003 09:12, Nick Nicholas wrote:
... or for that matter Meroitic" (since, as Bunz has often argued,
specialists on ancient languages only ever work in transliteration,
so the scholarly market won't use them
On 17/10/2003 14:19, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
Why? 200 millions should be more than enough: that's more than 30.000
words
for each living language.
The Oxford English Dictionary has almost 10 times that many m
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> Isn't most of that work already implemented for Indic scripts that require
> glyph reordering? Or do you mean the complexity of the work needed to
> create the glyph reordering tables (for logical to visual order)?
Relax, it's a joke.
> Isn't the Indic system now flexi
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
>
> > Why? 200 millions should be more than enough: that's more than 30.000
words
> > for each living language.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary has almost 10 times that many main entries.
> And if we want to record every obvious
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> >> It strikes me that the controversy about Klingon has more to do with
> >> its fictional origins than number of users. Is this not true?
> >
> >
> > I don't think so. We will certainly encode Tengwar and Cirth, which
> >
John Hudson wrote:
At 11:59 AM 10/17/2003, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
And of course, there's all that discussion on Tolkien languages
online... all of which used Latin transliteration (with slightly
varying standards too: accented vowels, doubled vowels, tripled
sometimes, etc etc. "More than on
Please remove me from the list.
Thanks.
On 17/10/2003 10:18, Patrick Andries wrote:
- Message d'origine -
De: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Languages, such as Swahili, which use prefixes instead than suffixes will
be
encoded in "logical order", i.e. with the combining prefix after the root.
It will be the tas
At 11:59 AM 10/17/2003, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
And of course, there's all that discussion on Tolkien languages online...
all of which used Latin transliteration (with slightly varying standards
too: accented vowels, doubled vowels, tripled sometimes, etc etc. "More
than one orthography"). Th
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> Who *writes* in Linear B? People write in transliterations of it.
Now they do. But the people who actually did write in LinB, even though
they had no computers (abacuses, maybe), were in fact publishing what
they wrote.
>
> Note, too, that Klingon's PUA is used in
John Cowan wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
I'm attaching a screenshot of http://www.kli.org/QQ/QQ0202.html?mode=UTF
which SHOULD be a Unicode encoding. This is with Mozilla 1.4 and
Code2000. Even people who can read pIqaD can't read this. The "qapla'"
page works okay, but note that onl
- Message d'origine -
De: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patrick Andries scripsit:
>
> > Incidentally, I notice that the b of group 8's bî (in my Meillet and
Cohen
> > plural of ki) has a horizontal stroke across the lower stem of the b. I
also
> > noticed this in a transcription o
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> Oh. Right. So we just need to have a standardized encoding for Klingon
> to get a standardized encoding for Klingon. That seems simple enough.
> (and the fact that we already have and use one (or two: the PUA and the
> "xifan" coding) doesn't count because... wh
Patrick Andries scripsit:
> Incidentally, I notice that the b of group 8's bî (in my Meillet and Cohen
> plural of ki) has a horizontal stroke across the lower stem of the b. I also
> noticed this in a transcription of a Mayotte language. Also used by Meillet
> and Cohen to note class 2 and class
Michael Everson wrote:
It strikes me that the controversy about Klingon has more to do with
its fictional origins than number of users. Is this not true?
I don't think so. We will certainly encode Tengwar and Cirth, which
have corpora of documents in them. Klingonists universally prefer
Lati
At 14:59 -0400 2003-10-17, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
And of course, there's all that discussion on Tolkien languages
online... all of which used Latin transliteration (with slightly
varying standards too: accented vowels, doubled vowels, tripled
sometimes, etc etc. "More than one orthography").
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> How many users of Ogham are there? (An bhfuil foilseachán ar bith sa lá atá
> inniú ann clóbhuailte in Ogham?) Is there even one publication today that is
> printed in Ogham? Why does Ogham qualify for entry but not Klingon?
Because Klingon is neither an archaic n
On 17/10/2003 09:12, Nick Nicholas wrote:
... or for that matter Meroitic" (since, as Bunz has often argued,
specialists on ancient languages only ever work in transliteration, so
the scholarly market won't use them all that much). ...
That is not true of all ancient scripts. Some, like biblical
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> Why? 200 millions should be more than enough: that's more than 30.000 words
> for each living language.
The Oxford English Dictionary has almost 10 times that many main entries.
And if we want to record every obvious derivative, 4 million words (times
6000 languages) s
At 09:07 AM 10/17/2003, wrote:
How many users of Ogham are there? (An bhfuil foilseachán ar bith sa lá atá
inniú ann clóbhuailte in Ogham?) Is there even one publication today that is
printed in Ogham? Why does Ogham qualify for entry but not Klingon?
It strikes me that the controversy about Klin
- Message d'origine -
De: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Languages, such as Swahili, which use prefixes instead than suffixes will
be
> encoded in "logical order", i.e. with the combining prefix after the root.
> It will be the task of the uttering engine to reorder the prefix.
Mark E. Shoulson scripsit:
> But
> there *are* people who use it in handwriting, who keep journals in it,
> who write notes to one another... (I'm not one of them, in general, but
> there are Klingonists who do). I'll see if I can get you some names and
> data.
This doesn't really meet what
At 11:07 -0500 2003-10-17, Some Bozo [i.e. Brian] wrote:
How many users of Ogham are there? (An bhfuil foilseachán ar bith sa lá atá
inniú ann clóbhuailte in Ogham?)
Tá foilseacháin ina bhfuil Ogham clóchuailte ann.
Is there even one publication today that is
printed in Ogham? Why does Ogham qual
John Cowan wrote:
> You persist in misunderstanding. Suppose I came along and told you
> I wanted to create a Unicode codepoint for each word in every language
> on Earth. Would you blithely allocate me a 24-billion-codepoint
> private space?
Why? 200 millions should be more than enough: that's
It strikes me that number of users alone should not be cause to exclude a
script. I'm certain that many of you are familar with Michael Krauss'
landmark essay, "The World's Languages in Crisis" (1992), which estimates
that as many as half of the world's languages are spoken by fewer than
10,000
On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 02:04 Australia/Melbourne, Nick Nicholas
wrote:
On Saturday, Oct 18, 2003, at 00:31 Australia/Melbourne, Ecartis wrote:
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:00:45 +0100
From: Jill Ramonsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Klingons and their allies - Beyond 17 planes
The reason tha
That's what I mean. We'd better shut down the list.
~mark
Peter Constable wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
Doesn't *everyting* take time from other proposals?
You mean, discussions like this?
Rick McGowan wrote:
Jill Ramonsky wrote...
It seems to me that if 0x11 codepoints isn't a big enough space to fit in
the Klingon alphabet (and other alphabets which were similarly rejected)
then we need more codepoints. Simple as that.
Rejection of Klingon has *absolutely* nothing t
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> If we had an infinite codespace, we wouldn't need a private use area.
> If a private citizen said "I want some codepoints for some symbols I
> just invented for my pet fish" then there would be no problem saying
> "Sure thing, dude, you can have all the codepoints between
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Mark E. Shoulson
> Doesn't *everyting* take time from other proposals?
You mean, discussions like this?
Peter
Peter Constable
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Di
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jill Ramonsky
> The fact is that Klingon language publications, by and large, use the
> Romanized transcription presented in The Klingon Dictionary. This is
> arguably a chicken-and-egg situation
Not it's not. People have been creat
Jill Ramonsky wrote...
> It seems to me that if 0x11 codepoints isn't a big enough space to fit in
> the Klingon alphabet (and other alphabets which were similarly rejected)
> then we need more codepoints. Simple as that.
Rejection of Klingon has *absolutely* nothing to do with space. Jill
John Cowan wrote:
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
It seems a simple enough case to argue - EITHER the 0x11 character
space is amply big enough for everyone, as John Cowan asserts.
Big enough for everyone, but not for everything. Encoding Klingon has
a cost beyond the allocation of codepoi
Don't patronise me. I don't misunderstand you, I just disagree with you.
I think you're wrong you. Deal with it.
I'm happy to discuss this or any other issue, but ONLY if you drop the
insults.
Jill
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 1
--- Anirban Mitra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issues raised by Mr Gautam Sengupta is more of
> theoritical
> nature as unicode encoding for bengali is being used
> for quiet some
> year and some fundamental change he proposes can not
> be done due to
> basic propositions of unicode consortium.
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> Aha. Then at least we agree on something. An 0x11 character space is
> not big enough for everyTHING.
You persist in misunderstanding. Suppose I came along and told you
I wanted to create a Unicode codepoint for each word in every language
on Earth. Would you blit
At 09:28 +0200 2003-10-17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
This is a place where limited agreements managed by a registration
authority could help avoid conflicts of assignments, simply not possible
with PUA.
Philippe, if you'd like to pay me forty thousand a year I would be
delighted to manage a such a pr
At 11:00 +0100 2003-10-17, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
The reason that the Klingon alphabet is not currently part of
Unicode is that the Klingon Language Institute submitted a proposal
for the Klingon script to the Unicode Consortium,
That isn't true. It was *I* who submitted the proposal.
and the Uni
Harald Hammarstrom scripsit:
> 1. Where are the presentation forms for the special Pashto characters
> of the Arabic alphabet? The independent forms are in Arabic 0600-06ff
> but I couldn't find them in Arabic Presentation Forms A or B?
The presentation forms for the basic Arabic letters are enco
> -Original Message-
> From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 12:44 PM
> To: Jill Ramonsky
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Klingons and their allies - Beyond 17 planes
>
>
> Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
>
> > It seems a simple enough case to
The issues raised by Mr Gautam Sengupta is more of theoritical
nature as unicode encoding for bengali is being used for quiet some
year and some fundamental change he proposes can not be done due to
basic propositions of unicode consortium.
Mr Gautam, your contention is the new scheme will be us
Hello
Sorry is this is a stupid Q but I tried all the regular ways of finding
out.
1. Where are the presentation forms for the special Pashto characters
of the Arabic alphabet? The independent forms are in Arabic 0600-06ff
but I couldn't find them in Arabic Presentation Forms A or B?
2. I can't fin
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> It seems a simple enough case to argue - EITHER the 0x11 character
> space is amply big enough for everyone, as John Cowan asserts.
Big enough for everyone, but not for everything. Encoding Klingon has
a cost beyond the allocation of codepoints: proposals must b
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
>
>
> Before everyone goes jumping off the deep end with wanting to
> reserve more
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:04 PM
> To: Philippe Verdy
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
>
> Plenty of
> room there to encode not just all the scripts of the
On 16/10/2003 17:23, John Hudson wrote:
...
My understanding is that at least the rendering systems I'm most
familiar seem to be pretty much all or nothing: you either pass a
string to a script engine or you don't. If the string is passed to the
script engine, that engine goes through its steps
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> or the extra
> PUAs needed by Microsoft in its OpenType fonts for Office...)
(sigh)
OpenType fonts are not for only Office. PUAs are not needed or used by
Microsoft for OpenType imple
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Addison Phillips [wM]
> When all of the planes less than 16 are full and the possibility of
> exhausting code points become actually apparent (but not before), the
UTC
> should reserve a range of code p
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as a semi-private character. There are
> > standardized characters (which have particular meanings), and there
> > are private use characters (which are guaranteed to have no meanings
> > at all).
>
> I t
51 matches
Mail list logo
