"will decide to reunite their cultural efforts [...] and increasing their
mutual cultural exchanges instead of wasting them for old nationalist
reasons"
You're either an utmost optimist, or you have really no idea of Eastern
European history, culture and "spirit". :-)
I doubt your described scena
For the "standard form" you probably don't need to add a variation selector.
The codepoint for long s itself expresses exactly the semantic to represent
this character as long s in ANY type style.
While I'm not convinced of your variation proposal at all (on the contrary),
if you write it, write i
> > That statement is incorrect. The UCA currently specifies that
> > ill-formed code unit sequences and *noncharacters* are mapped
> > to [....], but unassigned code points are not.
>
> This is exactly equivalent: if you use strength level 3, they are
> both [...], ...
> > But an approach that abstracts the name, then tries to re-imagine a
> > representation from scratch is, in my view, very much misguided.
>
> Recall that many of the emojis 1) have changed glyphs quite a lot from
> the source glyphs, and 2) are to quite an extent defined from the *source*
> (J
Philipe,
Text typeset in Fraktur contains more information than text typset in
Antiqua. That means, there are some places where there are some (mild)
ambiguities in representation in the Antiqua version. Not enough to
bother a human reader who can use deep context to read the text
correctly,
Den 2010-08-05 00.20, skrev "Doug Ewell" :
> Kent Karlsson wrote:
>
>> I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
>> 9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
>> That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
>> the ordinar
"Asmus Freytag"
> > If a text was initially using a round s, nothing prohibits it being
> > rendered in Fraktur style, but even in this
case, the conversion to "long s" will be inappropriate. So use the Fraktur
"round s" directly.
> >
> This statement makes clear that you don't understand the
Kent Karlsson wrote:
> I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
> 9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
> That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
> the ordinary 0-9.
I suggested encoding all of them because U+00
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
>
> DS> ... I don't see why
> DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061
> DS> is the character.
>
> This is because I take into account the "implicit"
verdy_p wrote:
> The formal model already exists in ISO 639, that has decided to unify all
> dialectal variants under the same language
> code. Yes the concept is fuzzy, but as long as ISO 639 will not contain a
> formal model for how the various languages
> are grouped in families and subfam
"Kenneth Whistler"
> > Currently, if the Unicode scalar value (or invalid code unit) is
> > (unsigned 32-bit value), then they are treated as expansions to
> > ignorable collation elements:
> > [....]
>
> That statement is incorrect. The UCA currently specifies that
> ill-for
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 04:06:10 pm Kent Karlsson wrote:
> I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
> 9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
> That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
> the ordinary 0-9.
Well,
On 8/4/2010 1:30 PM, verdy_p wrote:
"Asmus Freytag" wrote:
The Fraktur problem is one where one typestyle requires additional
information (e.g. when to select long s) that is not required for
rendering the same text in another typestyle. If it is indeed desirable
(and possible) to create a
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
/kent k
Den 2010-08-02 19.54, skrev "Doug Ewell" :
> "Luke-Jr" wrot
"Doug Ewell" wrote:
> There is no "formal model" in the sense of a standard N-letter subtag
> for dialects, because the concept of a dialect is too open-ended and
> unsystematic. The word means different things to different people.
> What may be a dialect to one person might be a full-blown Natio
Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 19:11 schrieb Janusz S. Bień:
JJSB> I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s variant is
JSB> to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
The *variant* is applicable to situations where the character is to be
displayed long when Fraktur-like styles are in
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 08:52 schrieb William_J_G Overington:
WO> Please know that, whilst I comment on various matters, I am
WO> enthusiastic for the general thrust of your suggestion regarding
WO> access to alternate glyphs for Latin characters using Variation
WO> Selectors. This could pr
Am Dienstag, 3. August 2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
DS> ... I don't see why
DS> unspecific forms should be encoded; if you want a nonspecific a, 0061
DS> is the character.
This is because I take into account the "implicit" application of a
variation sequence on a base character by a highe
"Asmus Freytag" wrote:
> The Fraktur problem is one where one typestyle requires additional
> information (e.g. when to select long s) that is not required for
> rendering the same text in another typestyle. If it is indeed desirable
> (and possible) to create a correctly encoded string that ca
Am Mittwoch, 4. August 2010 um 00:31 schrieb Christoph Päper:
CP> ... than making sure every instance of a letter is
CP> accompanied by the appropriate VS?
My proposal contains the idea of "implicit application" of variation
sequences by higher-level protocols. I will make this clearer in my
next
verdy_p wrote:
> Really, "Hans", "Hant", "Latf", "Latg" could have been avoided in ISO 15924,
> if orthographic variants of the same
> languages had been encoded in the IANA database for BCP 47, independantly of
> the effective font style.
Actually it was the opposite; the ability to use stan
"John W Kennedy" wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
> > Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
> >> Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing
> >> systems with slightly different orthographies
> >
> > No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings o
On 8/2/2010 5:04 PM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
I have compiled a draft proposal:
Proposal to add Variation Sequences for Latin and Cyrillic letters
The draft can be downloaded at:
http://www.pentzlin.com/Variation-Sequences-Latin-Cyrillic2.pdf (4.3 MB).
The final proposal is intended to be submitted
On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
>
> Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
>
>> Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing
>> systems with slightly different orthographies
>
> No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings of the Latin
> writing syste
In my opinion, adding the s+VS1 variation sequence is completely unneeded. If
you really want a "long s", use the code
assigned to the long s. fonts or renderers should still provide a reasonnable
fallback to "s" if the glyph is missing.
This means that all existing ligatures will long s will c
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 05:19, William_J_G Overington
> Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at
> least part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
More on that by babelstone:
http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/rules-for-long-s.html
(Sorry for the duplicate email W
Am 03.08.2010 um 02:47 schrieb David Starner:
Fraktur and Antiqua are different writing
systems with slightly different orthographies
No. Fraktur and Antiqua are two (of many) different renderings of the
Latin writing system.
Regards,
A. Stötzner.
On 4 August 2010 09:19, William_J_G Overington
wrote:
Answering the two questions below on the assumption that s-VS1 <0073
FE00> were to be defined as a variation sequence for long s in all
type styles, and without giving any opinion on the merits or otherwise
of Karl's proposal in general, or sp
On Tuesday, 3/8/10, Janusz S. Bień wrote:
> I see no reason why, if I understand correctly, the long s
> variant is to be limited to Fraktur-like styles.
Long s was used with ordinary Roman type in England for English text in at
least part of the 17th and 18th centuries.
How could one expre
On Tuesday 3 August 2010, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> Any comments are welcome.
Firstly, thank you for making the document available.
I have made a few comments regarding matters that I noticed.
Please know that, whilst I comment on various matters, I am enthusiastic for
the general thrust of
30 matches
Mail list logo
