It took Devanagiri to show me the NATURE of the technical problem posed
by a dynamic encoding for cuneiform; it took Mongolian to show me that
the problem HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED in Unicode.
As in Devanagiri, dynamic cuneiform must be capable of mapping a sequence
of encoded characters to a
I do NOT believe that this thread should be discussed on the Unicode
List. I am responding to it only because Dean has let loose another
brace of hares. Let us reign them in, and kill this thread now.
At 14:13 -0500 2004-01-18, Dean Snyder wrote:
It took Devanagiri to show me the NATURE of the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It took Devanagiri to show me the NATURE of the technical problem posed
by a dynamic encoding for cuneiform; it took Mongolian to show me that
the problem HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED in Unicode.
No greater hames have we ever made than encoding Mongolian without a
proper
On 18/01/2004 12:20, Michael Everson wrote:
I do NOT believe that this thread should be discussed on the Unicode
List. I am responding to it only because Dean has let loose another
brace of hares. Let us reign them in, and kill this thread now.
...
Because we are not going to use a dynamic
At 13:53 -0800 2004-01-18, Peter Kirk wrote:
I find this kind of attempted censorship of
technical discussion highly distasteful,
especially when conducted in such a
disrespectful (!) ad hominem manner.
Softer words haven't worked. Dean keeps coming
back and reopening the issue on the public
Michael Everson wrote at 8:20 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
I do NOT believe that this thread should be discussed on the Unicode
List.
Why would you want to restrict the discussion of shaping format
characters and free variation selectors to a list populated mostly by
cuneiformists but
Tom Gewecke wrote at 2:26 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
It took Devanagiri to show me the NATURE of the technical problem posed
by a dynamic encoding for cuneiform; it took Mongolian to show me that
the problem HAS ALREADY BEEN SOLVED in Unicode.
No greater hames have we ever made than
[EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
How long does it take to create a Mongolian font, compared to, let's say,
a Hebrew one?
Very, very, very long. As far as I know, no Mongolian Unicode font yet
exists that contains more than the basic glyphs without any support for
ligatures or positional or variant
At 19:06 -0500 2004-01-18, Dean Snyder wrote:
Why would you want to restrict the discussion of shaping format
characters and free variation selectors to a list populated mostly by
cuneiformists but exclude feedback from a list populated mostly by
encoding experts?
I would want to restrict this
Michael Everson wrote at 10:23 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
This
discussion has mostly been on the Cuneiform list
(where it belongs) but Dean keeps coming over
here and trying to drum up support for his
ill-conceived and ever-mutating idea.
I am not trying to drum up support for a dynamic
I came across a character the other day that I can't find in Unicode.
It's a lower-case c with what appears to be a solid downward-pointing
triangle diacritic above it, supposedly used in the Chumash language.
It's shown in the attached PNG image (can be converted to lesser formats
on request).
The tone in this thread is rather unfortunate.
The temperature is rather high.
Sarasvati desires to see much less heat, and a bit more
tolerance or she will be forced to temporarily remove
the combatants from the fray.
Unamusedly yours,
-- Sarasvati
Michael Everson wrote at 12:53 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
My dislike of variation selectors as a form of pseudo-coding is not
confined to Mongolian.
Is your dislike shared by Mongolian encoding specialists, or the other
users of variation selectors you hint at?
Is there a significant body
.
Doug Ewell wrote,
Is this just a fancified hacek, or a potential candidate for proposal?
Naturally, from a Unicode standpoint I'm thinking about a combining
character, not a precomposed c-with-triangle.
It might be a caron, see:
http://www.chumashlanguage.com/pronun/pronun-00-fr.html
Best
on 2004-01-18 17:47 Doug Ewell wrote:
Is this just a fancified hacek, or a potential candidate for proposal?
Evidently a hacek: http://www.chumashlanguage.com/vocab/vocab-01-fr.html
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Mockingbird Font Works
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
SOMEONE at SOMETIME must have thought that free variation selectors were
a good idea for Mongolian in Unicode. If the thinking has changed on this
since then, I would love to hear about why it has changed. Is Mongolian
functioning well in Unicode or not? If not, what
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
Tom Gewecke wrote at 2:26 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
...
Agreed. I can't imagine that anyone who has ever tried to actually do
anything with Unicode Mongolian would recommend variation selectors as an
encoding technique, unless perhaps they wanted to make sure
James Kass jameskass at att dot net wrote:
It might be a caron, see:
http://www.chumashlanguage.com/pronun/pronun-00-fr.html
Curtis Clark jcclark at mockfont dot com wrote:
Evidently a hacek:
http://www.chumashlanguage.com/vocab/vocab-01-fr.html
Fancified hacek it is. Thanks, guys.
-Doug
At 09:23 PM 1/18/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, it's my understanding that implementation guidelines
for Mongolian script and Unicode are still being worked out.
You are correct. A group of experts is currently working out a definite
description of how Mongolian should work.
All the
19 matches
Mail list logo
