Eric Muller wrote:
> Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> [...] about "You see, boys and girls, computers think only in
>> numbers" -- in a Silicon Valley paper,
>
> > [...] Should we tell them about ârealâ quotes?
>
> âreal quotesâ are not just for Web publication; they are also for
> email.
> Throw in real d
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Thanks for the clarification. In principle we might be able to go a
> little further: we could define both and as
> canonically equivalent to c for all c in combining class zero. This
> would have to be some kind of decomposition exception so that c is
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 27/10/2003 10:31, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >The bad thing is that there's no way to say that a superfluous
> >CGJ character can be "safely" removed if CC(char1) <= CC(char2),
> >so that it will preserve the semantic of the encoded text even
>>On Red Hat Linux, if UTF-8 is not made as the default encoding for
>>Chnese/Japanese/Korean, what it is using for those double byte languages?
>The old multi-byte character sets.
for CJK, can UTF-8 to be set to the local for an App programatically without affecting
other apps?
>>Does la
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> each possible individually as a contraction. The Logical_Order_Exception
> property (see http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10/ section 3.1.3) just
One bug report note here:
The UTS#10 contains all references to several character properties,
pointing to http
On 27/10/2003 16:16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
So, all we can do is to define compatibility equivalence between:
and:
if and only if:
CC(c1) > CC(c2) > 0.
This won't affect the NFC and NFD conversion algorithms, but it can affect
the NFKC and NFKD conversion algorithms. This means that
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 27/10/2003 12:28, Mark Davis wrote:
>
> >Collation is very different, and already has mechanisms for dealing with
> >sequences. So no CGJ is needed there (except for case 2).
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >
> >
> Mark, can you outline what these mechanisms are or po
> ... Ironically,
> in 1943-45 nickels were actually minted in silver, as nickel was considered
> strategic for the war effort. Current nickels are 75% copper and 25%
> nickel, the same as the cladding of the other coins. (Pennies are
> copper-clad zinc, however.)
Prior to 1982, pennies were a
> So, all we can do is to define compatibility equivalence between:
>
> and:
>
> if and only if:
> CC(c1) > CC(c2) > 0.
Oops! Of course, I really meant:
All we can do is to define compatibility equivalence (NFK*)
between:
and:
unless:
CC(c1)
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 27/10/2003 10:31, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> >The bad thing is that there's no way to say that a superfluous
> >CGJ character can be "safely" removed if CC(char1) <= CC(char2),
> >so that it will preserve the semantic of the encoded text even
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: UAX #29 beta update (text breaks): apostrophe ./. H
> On 27/10/2003 13:34, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >The pr
On 27/10/2003 10:31, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
The bad thing is that there's no way to say that a superfluous
CGJ character can be "safely" removed if CC(char1) <= CC(char2),
so that it will preserve the semantic of the encoded text even
though such filtered text would not be canonically equivale
On 27/10/2003 12:28, Mark Davis wrote:
Collation is very different, and already has mechanisms for dealing with
sequences. So no CGJ is needed there (except for case 2).
Mark
Mark, can you outline what these mechanisms are or point me to a
definition e.g. in a section of UTR #10? As I had und
On 27/10/2003 13:34, Philippe Verdy wrote:
The proposed update to UAX#29 contains this text:
Apostrophe is another tricky case. Usually considered part of one word ("can
't", "aujourd'hui") ...
...
So in French we also have the additional word break rule:
hyphens ÷ LatinLetterH
This case is
I wrote:
> So in French we also have the additional word break rule:
>
> hyphens ÷ LatinLetterH
>
> This case is not documented...
But I forgot to speak about the common exception "aujourd'hui" (today) where
the apostrophe was originally an ellision resulting from the contraction of
"au jour de
The proposed update to UAX#29 contains this text:
Apostrophe is another tricky case. Usually considered part of one word ("can
't", "aujourd'hui") it may also be considered two ("l'objectif"). Also, one
cannot easily distinguish the cases where it is used as a quotation mark
from those where it is
From: "Peter Constable" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is no problem requiring a solution for combining marks used with
> Latin script,* including IPA and Vietnamese, because all of the marks
> that occupy a comparable space relative to the base have the same
> combining class, meaning that normaliza
Peter Jacobi asked:
> Doug, Kenneth, All,
>
> I', somewhat confused. I assume I'm lacking a lot
> of background, but I can't interpolate successfully between
> your answers:
>
> "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Unicode character names attempt to be (a) unique and (b) reasonably
>
From: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> the UTC decision:
>
> [96-C20] Consensus: Add text to Unicode 4.0.1 which points out that
combining
> grapheme joiner has the effect of preventing the canonical re-ordering of
> combining marks during normalization. [L2/03-235, L2/03-236, L2/03-234]
>
> [96-
Doug Ewell noted:
> The dollar sign was used
> occasionally for decoration on large-sized (pre-1929) U.S. currency, but
> not on small-sized issues (except for the bank-only $100,000 note).
And very rarely even at that. See:
http://www.money.org/bebeeexhibit.html
for many exhibits of all kinds
Collation is very different, and already has mechanisms for dealing with
sequences. So no CGJ is needed there (except for case 2).
Mark
__
http://www.macchiato.com
â à â
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "M
According to my understanding OpenType fonts for Khmer Unicode are available
from:
Om Mony ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Danh Hong ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Masavang Sean ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
These should work in Microsoft Office 2003 on Windows (especially Microsoft
Publisher) for display of Khmer characters bec
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> This principle may help solve the ambiguities in all those affected
> scripts
> (may be there are similar issues in the Latin script for Vietnamese,
which
> would like to better fit the phonetics of words that may be
incorrectly
> rendered by the currently requited normaliz
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I don't see any difference between your proposed generic CCO and CGJ. As
> you say, the same function may be needed in several scripts, including
> perhaps IPA which uses complex diacritic stacking. So why not simply use
> CGJ?
Why not effectively, but
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I am not sure what you mean by "further normalization steps for Hebrew".
Of course I don't mean that NF* algorithms must be changed. See below.
> If this means that users will be expected to input Hebrew in this order,
> perhaps with a keyboard driver wh
At 20:45 -0800 2003-10-26, Doug Ewell wrote:
The European Commission might have chosen to follow this example 30
years later, instead of trying to mandate that the Euro glyph remain
invariant in all fonts and contexts.
Doug, give that one a rest, OK? That was in 1996.
--
Michael Everson * * Everso
Someone has asked me what is the currently available Unicode support for
Khmer major software products (OpenType fonts, MS Office, Windows, Mac,
browsers and keyboards).
Could someone point me to current material on this topic or -- better --
summarize this support ?
P. A.
Simon Butcher wrote:
My bank (ANZ) recently gave me literature related to obtaining foreign
currency, and used the form $A (that is, with the double-bar form of
the dollar sign, not the single-bar form). Considering the small
glossy leaflet was about the rising Australian dollar, it's evidently
Raymond,
Apropos 10186 G GREEK ARTABE SIGN
The identity of one glyph variant of ‘zero’ and
one of ‘artabe’ raises an interesting problem.
If you look at e.g. ‘Siglae’ in RE 2.2 (1923)
2279-2315 you’ll see that Bilabel lists 16 glyph variants for the Artabe.
The most common varia
On 27/10/2003 08:45, Mark Davis wrote:
Thank you for the interesting thoughts. As I understand your suggestion,
and bearing in mind that dagesh (and the rare rafe) are also consonant
modifiers, you are effectively suggesting an order (already normalised):
consonant dagesh rafe shin/sin-dot CGJ rig
The holographic strip on the Euro notes shows the Euro symbol when
viewed at certain angles.
Norbert
Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> The latest issue of UK banknotes do carry the pound sterling sign (with
> one crossbar), but this is quite new. At least the more recent former
> issues did not, if I rememb
> Thank you for the interesting thoughts. As I understand your suggestion,
> and bearing in mind that dagesh (and the rare rafe) are also consonant
> modifiers, you are effectively suggesting an order (already normalised):
>
> consonant dagesh rafe shin/sin-dot CGJ right-meteg CGJ vowel accent CGJ
On 27/10/2003 06:54, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Thanks a lot for thzese precisions on Hebrew usages that need those
combining order overrides.
This demonstrates that this occurs relatively infrequently, and so
introducing a ignorable "combining order override" control makes sense,
without needing to ad
On 27/10/2003 07:28, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So the logical order is
.
But the canonical order is
;
up to three (and in theory
more, at least in biblical Hebrew) other characters may appear between
the base letter and the dot which fundamentally modifies it
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So the logical order is
> .
> But the canonical order is
> ;
> up to three (and in theory
> more, at least in biblical Hebrew) other characters may appear between
> the base letter and the dot which fundamentally modifies it.
Ohh, I forgot the case of the
Thanks a lot for thzese precisions on Hebrew usages that need those
combining order overrides.
This demonstrates that this occurs relatively infrequently, and so
introducing a ignorable "combining order override" control makes sense,
without needing to add duplicate codepoints with corrected proper
Hi!
> However, the presence of two opposing conventions serves as a strong
> hint that there was no consensus in 1966, nor now, as to how glyph
> variants of the dollar sign were to be used to stand for
> different types
> of dollars.
I went to school in the 1980's, and both in Victoria and Ta
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> Many monetary systems have coin sizes and weights that are based on
> the traditional precious or semi-precious metals once used. The nick-
> name for the nickel gives that away, associating it with a different
> metal than the (presumably once) silver-based dime/quarter/
I am on a business trip abroad with only limited e-mail access. I will
try to respond next week when I'm back home.
Jony
On 26/10/2003 19:58, John Hudson wrote:
...
Functionally, inserting a CGJ here resolves the problem fine. I'm just
not convinced that CGJ is a good general solution to the normalisation
problem: it works, but it requires deliberate insertion in every place
where unwanted mark re-ordering may oc
On 26/10/2003 12:51, Jony Rosenne wrote:
While the current combining classes may cause some difficulties for Biblical
scholars (and this isn't cut and dry yet - it isn't certain whether these
are Unicode problem, implementation problems, missing characters or
mis-identified characters), I have yet
On 26/10/2003 21:30, Doug Ewell wrote:
...
In my limited experience, that word DIME has done more to confuse
furriners than anything else about the U.S. and Canadian monetary
systems. The dime is the smallest coin in the set physically, weighing
less than half as much as a nickel, and made of (a
On 26/10/2003 20:08, John Cowan wrote:
Kevin Brown scripsit:
Incidentally, as far as I know, neither the dollar symbol nor cent symbol
have ever appeared on Australia's paper money or coinage.
Is this unusual?
I can't speak for the whole of the last two centuries, but certainly
current
At 09:30 PM 10/26/03 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I can't speak for the whole of the last two centuries, but certainly
> current American bills and coins do not use either symbol. The bills
> in common use say ONE DOLLAR, FIVE DOLLARS, TEN DOLLARS, and TWENTY
> DOLLARS; the coins say ONE CENT, FIVE
44 matches
Mail list logo
