On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Andrew Cunningham
wrote:
>
>
> I've been monitoring solutions for mobile devices esp smart phones in
> south east asia, and there seems to be a growing trend to implement
> legacy encodings for pseudo-Unicode solutions that aren't dependent on
> complex rendering t
> > What is the position regarding the 32-bit code point space
> > above U+10 please?
> > Does the Unicode Consortium and/or ISO or indeed anyone else
> > make any claims upon it?
> Yes, the claim is that if you use it, you're generating invalid Unicode.
>
> Don't do it, don't contempla
The tags will likely match ISO 15924 IDs. I don’t maintain the OT registry or
work on the OFF standard myself, so I’m not sure what the practice is. I’ve
just delivered the proposed tags.
Win7 supported Unicode 5.1. I’m pretty sure Vista pre-dated 5.0, but I don’t
recall now.
When I say “suppo
On Oct 14, 2010, at 4:12 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
> What is the position regarding the 32-bit code point space above U+10
> please?
>
Its use is incompatible with Unicode. Fundamentally, it cannot be represented
using UTF-16 (without a major rearchitecture), so it doesn't exist.
Pleased to hear the tag list is being updated. Will the 4 character tags
follow ISO 15924 (as I'm assuming)? If so at least we all write code and mark
up fonts accordingly then sit back and wait for system software support,
browsers etc. to kick in.
My reading of the OFF standard is the tag s
David Starner wrote:
> Apparently a tweet before that point is a string of 32-bit integers,
> including all those wonderful characters above U+10.
What is the position regarding the 32-bit code point space above U+10
please?
Does the Unicode Consortium and/or ISO or indeed anyone e
6 matches
Mail list logo
