BTW, with all this talk (on Unicode) about hexadecimal digits and
"Doug's private alphabet," I should mention that I've added some better
charts and examples to my Ewellic-alphabet page:
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ewellic.html
As always, please respond to the list only if you think the lis
Doug Ewell wrote:
wrote:
... and not one which somehow converted James' UTF-8
into Mojibake as above.
This may be the fault of my ISP, the illustrious AT&T's "Webmail".
It may not properly tag my outgoing messages as UTF-8. A colleague
has written privately to say that it was necessar
wrote:
>> ... and not one which somehow converted James' UTF-8
>> into Mojibake as above.
>
> This may be the fault of my ISP, the illustrious AT&T's "Webmail".
> It may not properly tag my outgoing messages as UTF-8. A colleague
> has written privately to say that it was necessary to manually s
On 11/11/2003 13:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Peter Kirk wrote,
Jill, I really thought this idea would excite you. Of course it would
have seemed more exciting if you had used a UTF-8 aware mailer (and/or
installed Code2000) ...
Code2001 is a freeware font which covers Plane One.
Code2
John Cowan wrote:
Here's a little table of the combining classes, showing the value, the
number of characters in the class, and a handy name (typically the one
used in the Unicode Standard, or a CODE POINT NAME if there is only one;
sometimes of my own invention).
This is already published with the
Title: Message
Jill Ramonsky
wrote:
I infer some confusion among contributors to this thread, some of whom
are still talking to me as though I'm
only interested in a sort algorithm and nothing else.
No, but it has been the only reasonable issue that has come up in
this
entire dis
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
> Jill Ramonsky summarized:
>
> > In summary then, suggestions which seem to cause considerably less
> > obje
.
Peter Kirk wrote,
> Jill, I really thought this idea would excite you. Of course it would
> have seemed more exciting if you had used a UTF-8 aware mailer (and/or
> installed Code2000) ...
Code2001 is a freeware font which covers Plane One.
Code2000 isn't and doesn't.
> ... and not one which
At 18:13 + 2003-11-11, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> >This is another strawman argument isn't it? Nobody on this thread
>has said they want monospaced alphanumerics.
No, but the responsibles have responded
My command of my native language (English) is pretty good, but the
above is so ungrammatica
António asked:
> The BMP roadmap shows "Comb. Diacritics Sup." at U+1DC0 .. U+1DFF in
> parenthesised blue, a block «for which proposals have been formally
> submitted to the UTC or to WG2. There is generally a link to the formal
> proposal.» But no document is linked to it. Is it possible to acce
(1) I distinguish between different kinds of digit 5 even within the same
radix.
radix 10 most-significant first positional digit 5 (examples: 5, Ù)
radix 10 units digit 5 (example: × )
radix 10 tens digit 5 (example × )
(2)
How would the natural sort algorithm handle fractions? Does 123,456 c
- Original Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 3:10 AM
Subject: Tengwar digits (was: Hexadecimal digits?)
> Chris Jacobs scripsit:
>
> > How about the elves? I have seen rumours
Jill Ramonsky summarized:
> In summary then, suggestions which seem to cause considerably less
> objection than the Ricardo Cancho Niemietz proposal are:
> (1) Invent a new DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE character, which allows you to
> construct any digit short of infinity
> (2) Use ZWJ for the same
On 11/11/2003 08:19, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
This is another strawman argument isn't it? /Nobody on this thread has
said they want monospaced alphanumerics./
Your examples unfortunately rendered as gibberish on both of my email
clients (Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird). If it weren't for
Michael,
> >This is another strawman argument isn't it? Nobody on this thread
> >has said they want monospaced alphanumerics.
>
> No, but the responsibles have responded and informed the list that
> clones of Latin letters A-F will not be entertained.
>
> How 'bout we drop the discussion?
Before
> >This is another strawman argument isn't it? Nobody on this thread
> >has said they want monospaced alphanumerics.
>
> No, but the responsibles have responded
My command of my native language (English) is pretty good, but the above
is so ungrammatical that I don't understand it at all. I have no
Are U+20E5 : COMBINING REVERSE SOLIDUS OVERLAY and U+0338 : COMBINING
LONG SOLIDUS OVERLAY expected to have the same general typographic
layout, so that they can be used in tandem? Would it be a bad thing to
use both on the same base cahracter to achieve a "crossed out" glyph?
--
On 2003.11.10, 10:46, Philippe Verdy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, some symbols used as function indicators are now quite
> omnipotent, and easily recognized with a well-defined meaning or
> function.
>
> Some of them are encoded in Wingdings or Webdings, but some others may
> merit their
The BMP roadmap shows "Comb. Diacritics Sup." at U+1DC0 .. U+1DFF in
parenthesised blue, a block «for which proposals have been formally
submitted to the UTC or to WG2. There is generally a link to the formal
proposal.» But no document is linked to it. Is it possible to access
this proposal?
--
At 16:19 + 2003-11-11, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
This is another strawman argument isn't it? Nobody on this thread
has said they want monospaced alphanumerics.
No, but the responsibles have responded and informed the list that
clones of Latin letters A-F will not be entertained.
How 'bout we drop
.
Jill Ramonsky wrote,
> If it weren't for (1) I'd ask you to repeat that in ASCII,
Easily done, even if you're not ASCIIng:
U+FEEB
U+1DEA
U+BABE
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 2:49 PM
Subject: RE: Hexadecimal digits?
> > This doesn't actually close the door to radix-64 altogether - it just
> > means that digit 42 would have to be represented as (U+0032, PLUS_TEN,
> > PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN,
This is another strawman argument isn't it? Nobody on this thread
has said they want monospaced alphanumerics.
Your examples unfortunately rendered as gibberish on both of my email
clients (Microsoft Outlook and Mozilla Thunderbird). If it weren't for
(1) I'd ask you to repeat that in ASCII,
.
The Math Alphabets in Plane One already include monospaced alphanumerics.
U+𝙵𝙴𝙴𝙱
U+𝟷𝙳𝙴𝙰
U+𝙱𝙰𝙱𝙴
They line up just fine, even in a proportional font.
If someone were to set up a special list for discussing all this hex stuff,
I promise not to join...
Best regards,
James Kass
.
Lots of useful and sensible opinions to which to reply, quoted below.
I'll try to reply to all of them at once.
In summary then, suggestions which seem to cause considerably less
objection than the Ricardo Cancho Niemietz proposal are:
(1) Invent a new DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE character, whic
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There is nothing to stop such an algorithm from returning true for less
> ('9', 'A') and equiv('A', 'a').
And as well for getDigitValue('A') to return 10...
The only thing that is missing for natural sort is the indication that 'A'
is not to be interpreted as a letter b
> This doesn't actually close the door to radix-64 altogether - it just
> means that digit 42 would have to be represented as (U+0032, PLUS_TEN,
> PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN, PLUS_TEN).
II? :)
From: Jill Ramonsky
> Actually, a PLUS TEN modifier would do the job just as
> well, and in fewer characters. So hex thirteen could be
> (U+0033, PLUS_TEN). (I think you suggested that
> first, but I wasn't paying close enough attention and
> missed it).
Heeeuuur!! I certainly did not sug
Jill Ramonsky wrote:
...the original issue of _whether or not there should exist Unicode
characters for which IsDigit() returns true and for which
GetDigitValue() returns values in the range ten to fifteen_.
If/when Tengwar gets coded, it will have digits for 10 and 11, as it
uses base-12.
I i
From: Jill Ramonsky
> Thanks for your highly constructive email. I'd be quite happy then to
> support the addition of just one single new Unicode character then
> (instead of six) - as in your ligature idea, which above I called
> DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE. This would seem to solve
> everything (pen
Doug Ewell wrote:
I think such a collection of symbols A becomes a cipher for a true
script B when it replicates the usage of symbols in B, irregularities
and all. In the Pigpen cipher, there is a symbol for C and one for T
and one for H, and C+H and T+H are slapped together *exactly* as they
are
On 11/11/2003 04:00, Jill Ramonsky wrote:
...
In fact, it might even be better, since it would allow things like
(U+0661, DIGIT COMBINING LIGATURE, U+0669), which would make hex
available to people who don't use the latin script. It would /also/
allow extention to radix-64 and above. (Yes, I
> > Why restricting to this range then [0 to 15]? The range of digits is
> > mathematically
> > infinite if you consider any possible radix...
>
> That's correct, of course. The reason is that, in my experience (as I
> can't speak for everyone else), radix sixteen is very frequently used,
> a
more
>
Thanks for your highly constructive email. I'd be quite happy then to
support the addition of just one single new Unicode character then
(instead of six) - as in your ligature idea, which above I called DIGIT
COMBINING LIGATURE. This would seem to solve everything (pending your
ans
Title: Message
(long argument deleted)
If you are suggesting that the natural
sort algorithm won't work without separate codepoints for hex digits
then you are of course correct, but that is an argument in favor of
hex-digit-characters, not against them.
Ordering natural numbers
> -Original Message-
> From: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Why restricting to this range then [0 to 15]? The range of digits
is
> mathematically
> infinite if you consider any possible radix...
That's correct, of course. The reason is that, in my experience (as I
can'
> Agreed. But if you want to write English with the Theban script, as
> there are no Theban characters? Or what if you want to write English
> with the RTL version of the Theban script which I found mentioned at
> http://catb.org/~esr/unicode/theban/? That can't be done by glyph level
> substit
Jim Ramonsky posted:
> It's a strawman argument, and it's sidetracking away from the original
issue of whether or not
> there should exist Unicode characters for which IsDigit() returns true and
for which GetDigitValue() > returns values in the range ten to fifteen.
Why restricting to this range
Thanks, Michael. The lack of vowel markings (see also my reply to Patrick)
does not defeat transliteration - only means character-to-character is not
be sufficient, and that one would need to take into account morphemes, words
and perhaps even context. I'm not worrying about it (I hope), but tryin
Look, for one thing I mentioned natural sort of an EXAMPLE of how I
think the digits ten to fifteen should be treated identically to the
digits zero to nine, not the raison d'etre. But could anyone else who
wishes to post on this subject (natural sort) please CONSIDER whether
you've actually u
Thanks, Patrick. Replies in text below...
- Original Message -
From: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Don Osborn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Berber/Tifinagh (was: Swahili & Banthu)
>
>
I'm following this discussion with some interest, as an enthusiast of
alternative scripts for English (Deseret, Shavian) and inventor of one.
Some random thoughts:
I'm rather uncomfortable with labeling a script, or the usage of a
script, a cipher simply because it is used by a minority. How larg
42 matches
Mail list logo
