- Original Message -
From: "Mark E. Shoulson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 3:51 AM
Subject: Re: Did the waw in [Dan. v. 8] change?
> Chris Jacobs wrote:
>
> >[Dan. v. 8] "They were not able t
Christopher Fynn wrote:
John
"Script" is already defined in ISO 10646 as: ...
I was not proposing a new formal definition, I was identifying a *functional* aspect of a
de facto definition as being distinction in plain text. This should go without saying --
characters for plain text is what Uni
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Christopher Fynn
> D. Starner wrote:
> >So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
> >Users of those scripts have been told they can just use a different
> >font.
> >
> No - and no one is seriously proposi
D. Starner wrote:
Iâve heard Japanese so proposed repeatedly.
Has there ever been a formal proposal to WG2 / UTC?
(of course we know what the result would be since CJK unification is a
fundamental part of the standard)
Iâve also heard, and agree
with, the arguments that IPA is a script in t
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> D. Starner wrote:
>
> >So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
> >Users of those scripts have been told they can just use a different
> >font.
> >
> >
> No - and no one is seriously proposing that these are scripts in the
D. Starner wrote:
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Telling people who propose a script that they can "just use a
different font " could very easily contradict this stated goal.
So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
Users of those scripts have bee
Christopher Fynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Telling people who propose a script that they can "just use a
> different font " could very easily contradict this stated goal.
So are we going to encode the Japanese, Fraktur and Farsi scripts?
Users of those scripts have been told they can just
Sorry about the garbled Subject line in my previous post. I don't know
how that happened as the original in my Sent folder looks OK
Christopher Fynn wrote:
John Hudson wrote:
I have been thinking today that part of the reason for the debate is
that Unicode has a singular concept of 'script'
John Hudson wrote:
I have been thinking today that part of the reason for the debate is
that Unicode has a singular concept of 'script', a bucket into which
variously shaped concepts of writing systems must be put or rejected.
I don't think there is anything conceptually wrong with the idea
Dean Snyder wrote,
> I just saw the following posting on the Ancient Near Eastern email list.
>
> Interesting in light of the Phoenician and Archaic Greek discussions here, no?
>
> Notice the striking non-use of the term "Phoenician" in the conference
> title, using "West Semitic" instead.
Si
Ernest Cline wrote:
[Original Message]
From: Dean Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Unicode List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 5/30/2004 1:29:06 AM
Subject: Interesting Timing
I just saw the following posting on the Ancient Near Eastern email list.
Interesting in light of the Phoenician and Archaic Gree
> [Original Message]
> From: Dean Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Unicode List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 5/30/2004 1:29:06 AM
> Subject: Interesting Timing
>
> I just saw the following posting on the Ancient Near Eastern email list.
>
> Interesting in light of the Phoenician and Archaic Greek
Peter Kirk wrote,
> I will take the opportunity of reminding Mike Ksar that the original
> proposal N2746, http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2746.pdf,
> contained factual errors, in particular the statement in C 2a that no
> contact has been made with members of the user community. In fac
13 matches
Mail list logo
