At the risk of keeping the thread from hell alive, I'd like to point out a new
contribution by Michael Everson that may be of interest to participants in this
debate :
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2787-phoenician.pdf
To my untrained eyes this document provides some pretty compelling
D. Starner wrote,
There's a big difference between Phoenician not being a separate script
from those already encoded in Unicode, and it not existing. It certainly
exists as a script variant, like Fraktur.
In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script variant of Hebrew is a big
win
In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script variant of Hebrew is
a
big
win for many of the users of the script, since they would have a
hard
time
deciphering the bizarre (to them) script variant but have no problem
reading
texts originally written in it in different fonts.
I didn't
Peter Constable scripsit:
In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script variant of Hebrew
is a big win for many of the users of the script, since they
would have a hard time deciphering the bizarre (to them) script
variant but have no problem reading texts originally written in
it
On 08/06/2004 06:23, James Kass wrote:
D. Starner wrote,
There's a big difference between Phoenician not being a separate script
from those already encoded in Unicode, and it not existing. It certainly
exists as a script variant, like Fraktur.
In that sense, treating Phoenician as a script
Here is a long off-line discussion put back where it belongs.
At 11:23 + 2004-06-06, James Kass wrote:
Old Italic is relevant. A while ago, I discussed numismatic marks
with some people who are interested in Unicode for numismatic
databases. Some of the ancient Roman mint marks and so
The Unicode® Consortium announced today the release of new versions of the
Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR 1.1) and the Locale Data Markup
Language specification (LDML 1.1), providing key building blocks for
software to support the world's languages. This new release contains data
for
The Unicode(R) Consortium
announced today the release of new versions of the Common Locale Data
Repository (CLDR 1.1) and the Locale Data Markup Language specification (LDML
1.1), providing key building blocks for software to support the world's
languages. This new release contains data
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf
Of Rick McGowan
The Unicode(r) Consortium announced today the release of new versions
of the
Common Locale Data Repository (CLDR 1.1) and the Locale Data Markup
Language specification (LDML 1.1),
I'm confused: at
Here's a link showing how one database application looks at some of
these numismatic marks. There are some graphics of the marks as
well as a section close to the top of this linked page describing an
approach.
http://home.utad.pt/~leonelm/papers/Coins/CoinDatabase.html
Best regards,
James
The reports page wasn't updated -- sorry.
As to the UTS, when CLDR came into Unicode, we decided to have it and associated
UTS's in a separate committee (LTC), since its scope was sufficiently different
from the UTC's. http://www.unicode.org/reports/about-reports.html was updated to
reflect this
It would seem to me that if numismatic marks are considered
for addition to Unicode, that hallmarks would be a similar
set of symbols that would be as equally desirable as
characters. The maker's marks should probably not be
encoded, but the assay office marks and purity marks are
both
Hi,
I am Anousak, am a team lead for KDE, Mozilla and OpenOffice Lao
localization. I would like to volunteer to translate
http://www.unicode.org/standard/WhatIsUnicode.html into Lao language.
Let me know on how to proceed.
Thanks,
Anousak S.
Michael Everson wrote:
Krause used Mo because there was no other plain-text way to show
M-with-o-above. Hint hint.
What's wrong with 004D 030A ? That's what it looks like to me.
~mark
[Original Message]
From: Mark E. Shoulson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Krause used Mo because there was no other plain-text way
to show M-with-o-above. Hint hint.
What's wrong with 004D 030A ? That's what it looks like to me.
004D 0366 would probably be an even better choice.
15 matches
Mail list logo
