hi
I have a question
regarding certain charachers in devnagari unicode pages.There are
additional consonents (U+0958) , (U+0959) ,(U+095A) , and
why separate code points are defined for
these?when such can be formed by combination of
(U+ 0915) +(U+093C) =
hi
When i type
(U+0924)+ (U+094D) + (U+0928) = I get
is not a popular form. where as popular form is
. (Atleast in Marathi).
for example . (which can be produced by using
ZWJ)
Why is this so? Can somebody elaborate more on
this?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:23:31 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Andrew C. West wrote at 6:43 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
Knowing nothing about Cuneiform, I can't say whether FVSs are a suitable
option
for Cuneiform or not, but if Dean is thinking about using FVSs like ordinary
Variation Selectors (i.e. applied manually by the user to select a distinct
Andrew C. West wrote at 6:43 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
Once the
rules have been established (hopefully soon), and incorporated into the
fonts,
rendering engines and IMEs, then everything should work like a well-oiled
machine.
Do legacy Mongolian electronic text systems work well? I ask,
Dear All,
I having XML file in Unicode-Big Indian font created in MS Word. Please let me know whether we can parse the XML file as it is with the MS Word? If yes please let me know the parser name.
Thanks,
N. Ganesh BabuAsst. Manager (Technology)Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd.51, 2nd cross,
eMantra Information wrote:
I have a question regarding certain charachers in devnagari unicode
pages.
There are additional consonents (U+0958) , (U+0959) ,(U+095A) ,
and
why separate code points are defined for these?
when such can be formed by combination of(U+ 0915) +
eMantra Information wrote:
When i type (U+0924) +(U+094D) + (U+0928) = I get
is not a popular form. where as popular form is . (Atleast
in Marathi).
for example . (which can be produced by using ZWJ)
Why is this so? Can somebody elaborate more on this?
Some languages want the
Michael Everson wrote at 4:54 PM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
No, we do not need to rehearse the pros and cons of the dynamic
model for Cuneiform already. Abundant evidence for why it has not
been chosen has already been presented.
But NO ONE mentioned free variation selectors in the
At 12:39 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
Michael Everson wrote at 4:54 PM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
No, we do not need to rehearse the pros and cons of the dynamic
model for Cuneiform already. Abundant evidence for why it has not
been chosen has already been presented.
But NO ONE
N. Ganesh Babu wrote:
I having XML file in Unicode-Big Indian font created in MS Word. Please
I believe you mean that you have chosen to save a document in the Unicode Big Endian encoding
scheme, formally known as UTF-16BE. An encoding is different from a font.
let me know whether we can parse
Michael Everson wrote at 5:55 PM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
At 12:39 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
But NO ONE mentioned free variation selectors in the discussion until
yesterday.
But it's not MAGIC, Dean. Whether it's one of the base signs plus
productive modifiers you cooked up in
At 14:14 -0500 2004-01-19, Dean Snyder wrote:
But it's not MAGIC, Dean. Whether it's one of the base signs plus
productive modifiers you cooked up in December, or whether it's
viramas, or zero-width joiners, or variation selectors,
It may not be magic but I was basically told it was taboo in
On Jan 19, 2004, at 12:14 PM, Dean Snyder wrote:
But now that I know that it is already part of the model for some
scripts
in Unicode and is being considered for further use, as in Han and
Hebrew,
I question whether this is the technical hair-brained, off-the-wall
idea
some have tried to make
Dean Snyder dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu wrote:
But now that I know that it is already part of the model for some
scripts in Unicode and is being considered for further use, as in Han
and Hebrew,
Is it being considered for Han and Hebrew? I hadn't heard that before,
and I wonder if that
I wrote:
in matters such as script disambiguation.
Huh? I meant glyph distinction, as in selecting Chinese-style vs.
Japanese-style glyphs for unified Han characters.
Write first, then read, grasshopper.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
At 12:45 AM 1/19/2004, eMantra Information wrote:
When i type (U+0924) + (U+094D) + (U+0928) = I get [Conjunct ligature]
[This conjunct ligature] is not a popular form. where as popular form
is [half-form conjunct]. (Atleast in Marathi).
...
Why is this so? Can somebody elaborate more on
On 19/01/2004 12:08, Doug Ewell wrote:
Dean Snyder dean dot snyder at jhu dot edu wrote:
But now that I know that it is already part of the model for some
scripts in Unicode and is being considered for further use, as in Han
and Hebrew,
Is it being considered for Han and Hebrew? I
Title: Chinese FVS? (was: RE: Cuneiform Free Variation Selectors)
It use in Han is/will be restricted to cases where a base
character can
have multiple glyphic forms which some people may want to distinguish
in plain text. In all cases where variation selectors are
being used,
On Jan 19, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Mike Ayers wrote:
I'm a little confused by this. I'm sure you're not talking
about script variations (traditional/simplified), but I'm not sure
what that leaves. Is this to deal with the variations in numerals
(everyday numerals vs. the special ones used
We areplanningto develope a Unicode font for Devanagari. We are in process of
completing the Type face design. Now we need consulting help for converting it to
Open Type.
I suggest you take this question to the OpenType discussion forum. For details, see
Is there any reason why this needed to be cross-posted to both lists?
Certain members of the Hebrew list have had a very bad habit of allowing
that discussion to spill over to the Unicode list for no good reason. I
hope that responders will be careful in posting to the Hebrew list only.
Peter
22 matches
Mail list logo
