Michael Everson wrote:
Expense. Complication. Delays while the encoding gets into the Standard
and thence into popular operating systems, with all the accoutrements
such as keyboard software.
None of those are reasons to stop encoding historic scripts.
No one is suggesting that these are reasons
Mark Davis scripsit:
> - There is a cost to deunification. To take an extreme case, suppose
> that we deunified Rustics, Roman Uncials, Irish Half-Uncial, Carolingian
> Minuscule, Textura, Fraktur, Humanist, Chancery (Italic), and English
> Roundhand. All often very different shapes. Searching/pro
Congratulations
Dele Olawole
www.dnetcom.com
- Original Message -
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 3:40 AM
Subject: The Unicode.ORG Server is now moved
> The Unicode.ORG server move has gone more or less according to plan,
At 23:04 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
I meant to say, of the encoding of *Hebrew* words (which are spelled
Hebrewly) in Yiddish text.
That would be a matter for the YIVO academy and other authorities.
But Hebrew words spelled Hebrewly in Yiddish are rarely pointed. And
Yiddish pronunciatio
At 22:47 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Expense. Complication. Delays while the encoding gets into the Standard
and thence into popular operating systems, with all the accoutrements
such as keyboard software.
None of those are reasons to stop encoding historic scripts.
--
Michael Everson * *
At 02:50 + 2004-05-04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Encouraging users to review the proposal and comment on its merits
strikes me as a fairer approach than the questions you and I have
constructed.
Thank you.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Mark Davis wrote at 9:28 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the
Phoenician
>would vary enough that in order to represent the palæo-Hebrew (or the other
>language/period variants), one would need to have font difference anyway.
>If so,
>then
Patrick Andries wrote at 8:55 AM on Monday, May 3, 2004:
>I got this answer from a forum dedicated to Ancient Hebrew :
>
>« Very few people can read let alone recognize the paleo Hebrew font.
>Most modern Hebrew readers are not even aware that Hebrew was once
>written in the paleo Hebrew script.
- There is a cost to deunification. To take an extreme case, suppose that we
deunified Rustics, Roman Uncials, Irish Half-Uncial, Carolingian Minuscule,
Textura, Fraktur, Humanist, Chancery (Italic), and English Roundhand. All often
very different shapes. Searching/processing Latin text would be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Those objections are quite generic and could be made just as well
> for N'ko, Ol Cemet', Egyptian Hieroglyphics, &c.
But there is no clear-cut alternative for any of those. N'ko encoding
is font-kludge, Unicode, or nothing. Here there is a fourth possibility:
dec
John Cowan wrote,
> > (And to the last, I'd be tempted to add: If so, what on Earth could those
> > objections be?)
>
> Expense. Complication. Delays while the encoding gets into the Standard
> and thence into popular operating systems, with all the accoutrements
> such as keyboard software.
Michael Everson scripsit:
> At 22:31 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
> >Michael Everson scripsit:
> >> A new contribution.
> >>
> >> http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
> >> N2755
> >> Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
> >> Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
> >
> >Goo
John Hudson wrote,
> That said, I am very glad that Ms Anderson's further questions
> encourage users to review the Phoenician proposal and to comment
> on its merits.
>
Encouraging users to review the proposal and comment on its merits
strikes me as a fairer approach than the questions you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> A fairer question to ask might be:
>
> Would you have any objections if the Phoenician script were given
> a separate encoding in the Unicode Standard as long as such an
> encoding wouldn't interfere with your ability to continue
>
At 22:31 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
N2755
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
Good stuff. What effect, if any, will this have on the standard
e
Michael Everson scripsit:
> A new contribution.
>
> http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
> N2755
> Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
> Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
Good stuff. What effect, if any, will this have on the standard
encoding of Yiddish?
--
Her he aske
At 22:20 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
Semiticists seem to transliterate Phoenican-script text into Latin
or Hebrew, and do not normally use the Phoenician glyphs at all.
Though we don't know to what extent that reflects the inability of
conventional printers to co
At 17:59 + 2004-05-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the contents of the screen shot were encoded in plain text under
the false unification of Phoenician with Hebrew, script identity
would be lost.
We had the same argument to disunify Coptic from Greek.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *
John Hudson wrote,
> Again, I'm not opposing the encoding of 'Phoenician' on principle, but I do
> think it is
> more complex than Michael's proposal presumes, and that more consultation with
> potential
> users is desirable. I think one of the questions asked should be, frankly:
>
> D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Omniglot's Cyrillic page shows O.C.S. (Cyrillic 10th century) and
Cyrillic (1918 version) in the same graphic. It's real easy to see
the similarity which is the reason for Cyrillic unification.
I suppose I consider the matter this way: visual similarity recommends unificat
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I thought about missing African letters like barred-R, barred-W, etc... with
combining overlay "diacritics" (whose usage has been strongly discouraged within
Unicode).
May be a font could handle theses combinations gracefully with custom glyph
substitution rules similar to the
At 10:12 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
OK, if you say so, but then, name names, or at least demonstrate the
truth of this statement. According to your proposal, you have not
been in contact with any users of the Phoenician script, but I
suppose you could still know who they are. But then D
The Unicode.ORG server move has gone more or less according to plan, and
mail lists have been turned back on. Thank you for your patience.
During the next few weeks, if you notice any service on Unicode.ORG that
previously worked but is now broken, or if you suspect that some HTML files
are
Your track record is not at all bad -- and I never mean to imply that. You have
definitely made good contributions to the standard-- and have shown great
dedication to the efforts of getting minority and scholarly scripts encoded.
The issue I have had is that once you get convinced that X is
"self
At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your
arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could have been saved.
Well, I guess it is not too late to include them in a revised
proposal.
What format would you like that addition to h
At 10:17 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
Semiticists are allowed to continue to do what they are doing if
your proposal is accepted, but if they don't, in your opinion they
lack common sense.
Semiticists seem to transliterate Phoenican-script text into Latin or
Hebrew, and do not normally us
A new contribution.
http://www.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2755.pdf
N2755
Proposal to add QAMATS QATAN to the BMP of the UCS
Michael Everson & Mark Shoulson
At 10:25 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
It is not possible to take an encoded Genesis
text which is pointed and cantillated, and
blithly change the font to Moabite or Punic and
expect anyone to even recognize it as Hebrew.
Michael, you assert this, but do you actually know it to be true?
Ye
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That question misses being a 'leading question' slightly. The easiest
answer for the respondent is "No", as then no further explanation on
respondent's part is necessary. Furthermore, if we are to believe
the allegations about these users, they are already performing this
Michael Everson scripsit:
> Semiticists seem to transliterate Phoenican-script text into Latin or
> Hebrew, and do not normally use the Phoenician glyphs at all.
Though we don't know to what extent that reflects the inability of
conventional printers to cope with Phoenician, plus cultural lag.
At 08:40 -0700 2004-05-03, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
Speaking of which, I'm still not happy with the silent change in the
Unicode interpretation, introduced in version 4.0.1, of the 15924
code "Hrkt":
Old meaning: Hiragana AND Katakana; text contains characters from
both syllabaries.
New meaning:
At 08:47 -0700 2004-05-03, Mark Davis wrote:
More explicitly: "But sometimes self-evident to Michael is self-evident to
Michael "
My track record is not all that bad, Mark. I do try my best.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> Wondering about casing, if the "gb" diagraph appears initially, I have
> a booklet for learning Yoruba which includes the proper name of the
> Rt. Rev. Isaac Gbekeleoluwa Abiodun Jadesimi in the bilingual dedication.
> In both the Yoruba and English versions of the
Michael Everson scripsit:
> If you think that a Hebrew Gemara, with its baroque and
> wonderful typographic richness, can be represented in a Phoenician
> font,
I don't think that one bit. (Why is it that when I disagree with
someone, that person so frequently wants to accuse me of believing
Thanks Doug. all contributions are appreciated.
Regards
Dele
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "African Oracle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Everson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 5:11 PM
Subj
Please look at some samples here - http://www.dnetcom.com/Fonts/index.html
Dele
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "African Oracle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
>
> Dele Olawole w
That document (http://www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09Chap.pdf) is obviously
*not* encodeable as plain text. Drop caps, bold face, italics, superscripts,
font size, headers, footnotes, etc.
The question for me is whether the scholarly representations of the Phoenician
would vary enough that in
This depends on how sophisticated the fonts are. It is straightforward to make
fonts that map from a series of characters to a precomposed glyph, getting you
exactly the same quality you would get with a precomposed character.
(And it is possible in the rendering engine to do a better job of accen
Dele:
> Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
> Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that
since
> the
> character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should
be...
My guess is that the problems you are encountering is not in usi
This is your final reminder that the Unicode.ORG mail system will be taken
down today for our server move. It is now approximately 9:00 a.m. May 3
(US Pacific Time). The mail server will go off-line in approximately three
hours.
Because mail is often queued and delivery is not instant around
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 22:01 -0700 2004-05-02, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> Speaking of which, I'm still not happy with the silent change in the
>> Unicode interpretation, introduced in version 4.0.1, of the 15924
>> code "Hrkt":
>>
>> Old meaning: Hiragana AND Katakana; text contains characters
> Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how
can
> you
> equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How
significant
> is significant?
>
> A B D E E F G GB
It is certainly the case that in the Yoruba alphabet "gb" is a distinct
unit - the term we use fo
Christopher Vance wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:17:02AM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
>> Oops, I searched an example, and forgot to change the leading code.
>> This should have been read as: "ca-Latn-ESCI" or "ca-ESCI".
>> It's not importnat here, it was only an arbitrary example to show
>
> There is no problem with the dot below concerning all the letters
I was
> talking about, the problems are with the accents which are not
properly
> positioned and in font development for example there are standard
> positions.
> Look at the following examples as sent by Åke
>
> Ẹ
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Note that I'm focussing on problems that may arise from RFC 3066.
> There's no problem in fact with ISO 639, ISO 3166 or ISO 15924
> isolately. The problem is clearly in the ambiguous syntax of RFC 3066
> once modified to include optional script codes followed by optional
Asmus Freytag wrote,
> This is only true if:
>
> a) there is no visual differentiation
There is no visual differentiation in any of the examples I've ever seen.
> I would like to see a (small) picture of Yoruba text with these digraphs.
I sent a small picture off-list taken from this on-line
Dele a.k.a. "African Oracle" wrote:
> GB is a different from G+B You do not pronunce the letters separately
> but people that do not know anything about the language do which is
> wrong. It is about correction and proper representation.
What Michael and others have been trying to say is this:
U
At 10:50 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
> It is false to suggest that fully-pointed Hebrew text can be rendered
> in Phoenician script and that this is perfectly acceptable to any
> Hebrew reader
Of course it is.
Then it is false to pretend that the unification mak
At 06:19 -0800 2004-05-03, D. Starner wrote:
Hebrew has the same 22 characters, with the same character properties.
And a baroque set of additional marks and signs, none of which apply
to any of the Phoenician letterforms, EVER, in the history of
typography, reading, and literature.
And you call
At 06:17 AM 5/3/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unicode considers such combinations of letters to be "presentation forms"
of letters which are already covered in the Unicode Standard. Although
for the Yoruba language, the "gb" digraph is treated as a single letter,
for computer encoding it is a str
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
> sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successfully?
That is a deficiency in either the font or the operating system.
Under a proper Unicode-based OS, one can always create well-tun
Michael Everson scripsit:
> It is false to suggest that fully-pointed Hebrew text can be rendered
> in Phoenician script and that this is perfectly acceptable to any
> Hebrew reader
Of course it is.
> as would be the case for ordinary font change).
Not all font changes are acceptable. Give me
> the
> argument that despite how complex Square Hebrew has become with it
> signs and diacritics and stretched letters and alef-lamed ligatures
> and Yiddish ligatures
The Latin alphabet has 23 letters, IIRC. The Latin alphabet as
encoded in Unicode has hundreds of letters, including many case
On Monday, May 03, 2004 1:52 PM, John Cowan va escriure:
> Antoine Leca scripsit:
>
>> Particularly when I read
>>Tags constructed wholly from the codes that are assigned
>>interpretations by this chapter do not need to be registered with
>>IANA before use.
>> inside clause 2, which o
Dele Olawole wrote,
> Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how can you
> equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How significant
> is significant?
>
> A B D E E F G GB
Please take a moment to visit this page:
http://www.unicode.org/standard/wher
At 12:44 + 2004-05-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please take a look at the attached screen shot taken from:
www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09Chap.pdf
If anyone can look at the text in the screen shot and honestly
say that they do not believe that it should be possible to
encode it as plain te
At 09:21 -0400 2004-05-03, Patrick Andries wrote:
And REJECTED them as being a different script.
What does this mean ? How do you know how they
felt ? Any differently from the Germans that
rejected Suetterlin as different script, etc. ?
It means that they saw the script, knew it to be
different
At 15:15 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how can you
equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How significant
is significant?
A B D E E F G GB
This is no different from Welsh:
A B C CH D DD E F FF G NG
D. Starner a écrit :
Phoenician script, on the other hand, is so
different that its use renders a ritual scroll
unclean.
And I've got Latin fonts, whose use will render a Bible unclean.
(Might come in handy for Tantric religious works, though.) More
seriously, I imagine some German religiou
At 05:10 -0800 2004-05-03, D. Starner wrote:
And I've got Latin fonts, whose use will render a Bible unclean.
(Might come in handy for Tantric religious works, though.) More
seriously, I imagine some German religious communities were very
strict on the Bible in Fraktur instead of a radical new Roma
Dele Olawole wrote,
> That is what I have said that gb is a letter, a single letter and not
> combination of letter. Look at this statement -
>
> Gbogbo awon are GB ti de. - All people from Great Britain have arrived.
> Going further to be a bit funny I can say Great Britain o great britain o
>
Michael Everson a écrit :
At 08:56 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
You can buy books to teach you how to learn Sütterlin. Germans who
don't read Sütterlin recognize it as what it is -- a hard-to-read way
that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
Sure. At
Michael that is still the mistake that we are talking about concerning
people and culture. Eye is bird for example in Yoruba but when the European
first wrote, it was written the way they pronunced it with EIYE. It took
many years to write it properly.
GB is a different from G+B You do not pronunc
I got this answer from a forum dedicated to Ancient Hebrew :
 Very few people can read let alone recognize the paleo Hebrew font.
Most modern Hebrew readers are not even aware that Hebrew was once
written in the paleo Hebrew script. There are also many who believe that
the square script is the
> Phoenician script, on the other hand, is so
> different that its use renders a ritual scroll
> unclean.
And I've got Latin fonts, whose use will render a Bible unclean.
(Might come in handy for Tantric religious works, though.) More
seriously, I imagine some German religious communities were
At 08:56 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
You can buy books to teach you how to learn Sütterlin. Germans who
don't read Sütterlin recognize it as what it is -- a hard-to-read way
that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
Sure. At some point, the same was t
At 14:39 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
Gbogbo awon are GB ti de. - All people from Great Britain have arrived.
Going further to be a bit funny I can say Great Britain o great britain o
awon ara Great Britain ti de.
A situation I am driving at is when looking at the GB it can be
differenti
Please take a look at the attached screen shot taken from:
www.yahweh.org/publications/sny/sn09Chap.pdf
If anyone can look at the text in the screen shot and honestly
say that they do not believe that it should be possible to
encode it as plain text, then the solution is obvious:
We'll disagre
Michael Everson scripsit:
> You can buy books to teach you how to learn Sütterlin. Germans who
> don't read Sütterlin recognize it as what it is -- a hard-to-read way
> that everyone used to write German not so long ago.
Sure. At some point, the same was true of Palaeo-Hebrew and
Square Hebrew,
At 07:21 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
E with dot below and grave accent
E with dot below and acute accent
O with dot below and grave accent
O with dot below and acute accent
These can all be represented by combining sequences already.
GB written together as the Norwegian Æ, this is becau
That is what I have said that gb is a letter, a single letter and not
combination of letter. Look at this statement -
Gbogbo awon are GB ti de. - All people from Great Britain have arrived.
Going further to be a bit funny I can say Great Britain o great britain o
awon ara Great Britain ti de.
A s
At 00:47 -0400 2004-05-03, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
> Scholarship seems to have proved it, whether or not you believe it.
Well, we have heard about part of the dispute.
From where I sit the burden of proof is on those
who make these claims about what Semiticists are
doing.
I
Dele Olawole wrote,
Ẹ ́ the accent is at the edge of the E with dot below - It is the same no
matter which font is used
On this Ọ̀ it almost fell off
éẹ́èẹ̀ - On all these ones they are not on the same level
One reason that it displays badly is because it is encoded wrong.
In the first ex
Philippe Verdy wrote,
> From: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
> > precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
>
> But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
> sequences, but almost al
At 22:01 -0700 2004-05-02, Doug Ewell wrote:
Speaking of which, I'm still not happy with the silent change in the
Unicode interpretation, introduced in version 4.0.1, of the 15924 code
"Hrkt":
Old meaning: Hiragana AND Katakana; text contains characters from both
syllabaries.
New meaning: Hiragan
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> The problem with language tags is that using ISO 3166 codes (which are
> defined by administrative divisions rather than by linguistic regions)
> is a workaround. For language tags, these instable administrative
> codes do not match well with language usage.
True enoug
At 23:26 -0700 2004-05-02, Doug Ewell wrote:
CA-NS: Canada, Nova Scotia
Cans: Unified Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics
IT-AL: Italy, Alessandria
Ital: Old Italic (Etruscan, Oscan, etc.)
This might qualify as the first recorded frivolous use of ISO 15924 codes.
I'm so happy it was you
--
ME
For what it is worth, I think the casing conventions "mn" vs "MN" vs
"Mong" are useful, and I don't know why software needs to disregard
it. But even if software does have to do so for good reasons, there's
no reason that one can't exercise discipline and always follow the
casing conventions fo
"As for the GB ligature, that might actually get encoded if you can provide
sufficent evidence for it." - D. Starner
That will not be a problem, because I still think things must be properly
done, language must be properly written, even where people have to combine,
the combination must be right.
"Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization. Others can better tell you
how to get the job done with what you have." - D. Starner
Thanks for your response. Unless I am missing something here. I think the
purpose of letter
Antoine Leca scripsit:
> > Catalan is not Spanish, and has its own code.
>
> Sorry to contradict you slightly, John. Please note that this issue is
> sensitive for some Catalans here in Spain, so I mention it for the sake of
> everybody here knowing it.
I'm not sure where the contradiction comes
Did I mix Canaries and Baleares? I'll have to look again for the articles
related to Catalan, which spoke about its 4 main dialects. I was probably
remembering one being in the Canaries, but you may be right if this is really
the Baleares.
May I reformulate the examples ?
The problem with language
Christopher Vance scripsit:
> Even if there were (my draft is at work and I can't check right now),
> there's no problem. Script names are mixed case, and ISO 3166-2
> subcountry codes are all upper.
I think the principle of case insensitivity in RFC 3066 is unlikely
to change. In any case, tho
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:17:02AM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Oops, I searched an example, and forgot to change the leading code.
This should have been read as: "ca-Latn-ESCI" or "ca-ESCI".
It's not importnat here, it was only an arbitrary example to show that the
syntax in RFC 3066 may become am
On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:45:48 -0800, D. Starner wrote:
> Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
> precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization. Others can better tell
> you how to get the job done with what you have.
Others can only tell how nice it would be if
On Monday, May 03, 2004 4:36 AM
John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> va escriure:
> Philippe Verdy scripsit:
>
>> And there are also ISO 3166-2 codes for administrative regions in
>> countries (such as FR2B for the department of Haute-Corse in France).
>
> I think those are usually written FR-2B, though
From: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
> precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successf
> Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
> Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since the
> character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be, at
> low font size they are disaster. Using Fontlab to design the fonts and
[ This is not copied to unicore, since I am allowed there. This is copyied
to ietf-language because the question was, but it may perfectly be filtered
out. ]
On Sunday, May 02, 2004 10:57 PM, John Hudson va escriure:
> In the code lists at
> http://www.unicode.org/iso15924/iso15924-codes.html th
Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since the
character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be, at
low font size they are disaster. Using Fontlab to design the fonts and
assigned
Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since the
character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be, at
low font size they are disaster. Using Fontlab to design the fonts and
assigned
From: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If a font has a trace to its copyright owner then it seems to me reasonable
> to suppose the copyright owner is the one to consult when difficulties arise
> about its PUA conventions.
A copyright notice is not parsable by a renderer that would like to see
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
> As I mentioned before, this will never happen, because even if an ISO
> 3166-2 region code did appear in a language tag (by registration, as
> John Cowan points out), the country and region would still be separated
> by a hyphen. Th
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Catalan is not Spanish, and has its own code. RFC 3066 permits registration
> of sub-country codes if needed, but they must be registered explicitly
> to be used. The proposed replacement, RFC 3066bis, does not yet
> allow sub-country codes.
Oops, I searc
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Lettercase can make a difference here to differentiate a script and a
> region code. Suppose that there's a ISO3166-2 code "LATN" (a region
> code "TN" in Lao?), how will you interpret "lo-LATN"?
>
> Is it the Lao language spoken in that particular region of Lao (the
> cou
95 matches
Mail list logo
