Quoting Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, as a C function handling wchar_t arrays it is not expected to
> conform to Unicode. But if it is presented as a function available to
> users for handling Unicode text, for determining how many characters (as
> defined by Unicode) are in a string, i
On 09/12/2003 15:27, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
I had the same feeling when I replied to Elaine that this may be an
annotation added by a Coptic scribe within the Hebrew text. But it was hard
to guess if this was the case. Coptic religious have made extensive studies
in Egypt related to ancient te
> > I've seen text/cpp and text/java, but really there are no such
> > types. I've also
> > seen text/x-source-code which is at least legal, if of little value to
> > interoperability.
> >
> > The correct MIME type for C and C++ source files is text/plain.
>
> This is where I disagree:
Brin
On 10/12/2003 02:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
OK, as a C function handling wchar_t arrays it is not expected to
conform to Unicode. But if it is presented as a function available to
users for handling Unicode text, for determining how many characters (
Hi Doug,
Thank you for your clarification. It's clear that existing
applications with mapping files do not require conversion to XML-based
format, in order to conform to Unicode. I am curious however; would you
consider XML-based format as the preferred format for future
developments, rat
Gupta, Shubhagam wrote:
> Thank you for your clarification. It's clear that existing
> applications with mapping files do not require conversion to XML-based
> format, in order to conform to Unicode. I am curious however; would
> you consider XML-based format as the preferred format for future
>
I need to get up to speed quickly on globalization and
localization. I've heard about the Unicode Conference
and the Microsoft Global Development and Deployment
Conference. Does anyone have any advice on which one would be more useful
to attend?
Tom
On 10/12/2003 15:11:33 unicode-bounce wrote:
>I am curious however; would you
>consider XML-based format as the preferred format for future
>developments, rather than adopting the plain-text "Format A." available
>at Unicode website?
Be aware that there are classes of mappings which cannot be r
I would have to say (as someone who is presenting at both of them!) that it
really depends on the platform upon which you are developing and to some
extent how much you really feel you need to know about particular topics.
The GDDC will cover more info about Microsoft technologies than the IUC
cou
To add to what Michael wrote, GDDC's focus is on hands-on solutions and
coding techniques for developing world-ready applications and deploying
platforms in multilingual environment.
The Unicode conference on the other hand is a forum to showcase
breakthroughs in the area of internationalization.
Elaine Keown wrote:
Dear Tom Emerson:
This history of unification is laid out pretty
clearly in Appendix A of TUS.
I hope this is online-- ...
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/appA.pdf
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.0/
markus
Gupta, Shubhagam wrote:
... I am curious however; would you
consider XML-based format as the preferred format for future
developments, rather than adopting the plain-text "Format A." available
at Unicode website?
Both the UTR #22 XML format and ICU's .ucm format provide syntax for the distinction
On 2003.12.09, 11:25, Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philippe, you have now stated this (several times). But just a day
> earlier you yourself stated that the rule forbidding combining marks
> at the start of a string would never be relaxed because it is
> fundamental to the XML containme
Peter Kirk averred:
> Agreed. C9 clearly specifies that a process cannot assume that another
> process will give a correct answer to the question "is this string
> normalised?", because that is to "assume that another process will make
> a distinction between two different, but canonical-equiva
Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin writes:
> On 2003.12.09, 11:25, Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Philippe, you have now stated this (several times). But just a day
> > earlier you yourself stated that the rule forbidding combining marks
> > at the start of a string would never be relaxed bec
On 10/12/2003 13:36, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter Kirk averred:
Agreed. C9 clearly specifies that a process cannot assume that another
process will give a correct answer to the question "is this string
normalised?", because that is to "assume that another process will make
a distinction be
Peter Kirk wrote:
>Consider the following:
> (1) {U+00E9}
> (2) e{U+0301}
> (3) e class="black-text">{U+0301}
> (4) e{U+0301}
> I would expect (1), (2) and (3) to be rendered identically, and (4) to
> differ only in the colour of the accent, just as it would be (apart from
> (1) if U+0301 were
Peter Kirk continued:
> >Once again, people are falling afoul of the subtle distinctions
> >that the Unicode conformance clauses are attempting to make.
> >
> >
> In that case the distinctions are too subtle and need to be clarified.
> C9 states that "no process can assume that another process
18 matches
Mail list logo
