At 5:36 pm +0100 2/11/03, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
>> True. However, some software will ignore hyphens in charset names in >> order to make bad encoding declarations like "utf8" work properly. Web >> browsers are one example of this.
First of all, a software which ignore the hyphens in one
>Can someone tell me if "utf8" is valid in a charset declaration. I ask >because I notice that neither Mail.app nor Eudora on the Macintosh >(MacOS 10.2.8) will recognise it and decode text so sent and will >insist on "utf-8" or "UTF-8" in the Content-Type decalration, >presumably because the
I suggest you try it out -
http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/lx/en_US/utf-8/?_=he&EXPLORE_CollationElements=
ICU implements the UCA, including discontiguous contractions.
markus
Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/11/2003 07:01, Kent Karlsson wrote:
However, the UCA does ignore differences between or
Folks on the Unicode mailing list:
I want to submit a Panel Presentation for IUC25 http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc25/submit-call.html topic "Let's Add More International Features to Tcl now!!!"
I need 3 panelists for this presentation. Anyone know Tcl want to join me? You can also join us if
On 03/11/2003 07:01, Kent Karlsson wrote:
...
However, the UCA does ignore differences between order of
*"non-blocking"* (**different** non-zero combining classes)
combining marks **when processing contractions**.
...
Kent, thanks for the hint. For the last few weeks I have been
complaining l
We are pleased to announce the release of the 4.0.0 version of
Unicode Technical Standard #10: The Unicode Collation Algorithm
(UCA), which specifies a default sorting order and comparison
mechanism for all Unicode characters.
Major changes in this release include:
- The version of the UCA is now
[I'm not sure why this Hebrew thread has migrated back to the
general Unicode list (from the Hebrew list); but my comments
below aren't specific to Hebrew.]
Jony Rosenne wrote:
...
> > As they will share the same combining class 220, the
> > canonical ordering will preserve their relative order
On 02/11/2003 21:55, Jony Rosenne wrote:
I don't see any basis for saying "now generally considered misguided". Some
people don't like them. Some of the reasons given were based on a
misunderstanding.
Jony
Well, for example Ken Whistler wrote in
http://www.unicode.org/faq/normalization.html:
8 matches
Mail list logo
