Also, before it was recognized that there are *also* used as decimal digits
(using some adequate substitute for the zero), Tamil digits 1-9 were seen as
part of a non-decimal-positional system. Nevertheless, they were given class
Nd.
By the way, if the Tengwar system is only duodecimal (as I think
On 28/04/2004 14:34, Ernest Cline wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28/04/2004 12:00, Ernest Cline wrote:
There will always be scripts that Unicode will not support, either
because
they are constructed scripts with no real use, rare or ancient scrip
On Apr 28, 2004, at 2:19 PM, John Hudson wrote:
The only interaction between glyphs in a font and character codes in
text is via mapping (which is done either internally or externally,
depending on the font format). Fonts do not contain any character
information other than which glyphs corrrespo
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > Interesting point. This would be an argument for the developement (out of
> > Unicode) of some standard technical solutions to exchange these private
> > conventions on PUA usage, including exchange of character properties, etc..
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On 28/04/2004 12:00, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> >
> >There will always be scripts that Unicode will not support, either
because
> >they are constructed scripts with no real use, rare or ancient scripts
that
> >lack sufficient examples t
On Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:28 PM
Peter Constable <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> va escriure:
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Behalf Of Antoine Leca
Waouh!
>> It is interessant to note that Microsoft did not endorse ISO 639 on
>> this regard, but sees Moldavian as being a for
On 28/04/2004 12:15, Peter Constable wrote:
...
Unless there are behaviours in Phoenician that distinguish it from
Hebrew.
I can't see anything in Phoenician (apart from the numbers) which
distinguishes it structurally from a subset of Hebrew. In fact that
subset is exactly the unpointed Hebre
On 28/04/2004 12:23, Peter Constable wrote:
While applications are of course not
obliged to support the PUA, if they choose to do so there should be no
expectation that they are party to any agreement. And so a group of
users with a private agreement can reasonably assume that software
which
On 28/04/2004 12:29, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Software developers, or applications, are not supposed to be party to
the agreement between *users*.
Do you say there that software developers are failing to comply with Unicode
rules by refusing to develop sy
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Interesting point. This would be an argument for the developement (out of
Unicode) of some standard technical solutions to exchange these private
conventions on PUA usage, including exchange of character properties, etc...
Why not then within fonts -- namely in Opentype tables
On 28/04/2004 12:00, Ernest Cline wrote:
...
There will always be scripts that Unicode will not support, either because
they are constructed scripts with no real use, rare or ancient scripts that
lack sufficient examples to determine how the script should be encoded,
or are picture fonts. This
On 28/04/2004 11:58, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Peter Kirk continued:
The PUA is intended for the internal use of applications (or groups of
applications), or for interchange between applications by private
agreement of all parties involved. ...
This is not quite right. From TUS section 15.7
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's a long way from assuming that my email software, produced
> by Sun, running on Solaris, and with some Unicode smarts built in,
> will itself be a party to that private agreement or ever could be
> made to *display* Ewellic properly. I depend on
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
> Of Michael Everson
> Structural one-to-oneness does not by default exclude a
> script from being separately encoded. Compare the scripts of India.
Just a comment on the argumentation, not necessarily the conclusion:
I haven't studie
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Software developers, or applications, are not supposed to be party to
> the agreement between *users*.
Do you say there that software developers are failing to comply with Unicode
rules by refusing to develop systems that allow *users* to make such privat
> While applications are of course not
> obliged to support the PUA, if they choose to do so there should be no
> expectation that they are party to any agreement. And so a group of
> users with a private agreement can reasonably assume that software
which
> supports the PUA in general supports the
A propos of the separate thread on the directionality of
Arabic digits...
> At some point it can indeed become unrealistic, snobbish, self-serving,
> and even lazy to just casually toss out the "do-it-yourself" crumb.
Thank you, Dean, for casting Persians in your Western. ;-)
> Currently, I vie
> > This is most easily and most naturally controlled by the end users
> > of such introspective setups - simply do not allow conflicting PUA
> > code points on their systems. In such a scenario, the operating
> > system is not forced to make decisions.
>
> That seems unduly limiting. If I wan
On 28/04/2004 11:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Kirk scripsit:
Not true, I think. I understand the Arabs and Persians write their
numbers in opposite orders, I can't remember which is which.
The evidence on the list is that persophones write numbers by
skipping the right amount of s
Peter Kirk continued:
> >The PUA is intended for the internal use of applications (or groups of
> >applications), or for interchange between applications by private
> >agreement of all parties involved. ...
> >
>
> This is not quite right. From TUS section 15.7,
> http://www.unicode.org/versions
20 matches
Mail list logo
