On Thu, 17 May 2012 21:32:19 -0700
Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Richard Wordingham
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
As I've already said, DUCET 6.1.0 omits a contraction for 0FB2+0F71,
and
so CE(0FB2, 0334, 0F71, 0F80) =
Is there a good reason, or some explanation, for the lack of
MATHEMATICAL SANS-SERIF CAPITAL THETA in Unicode?
As far as I have understood, the Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block
has been added to make it possible to make certain distinctions at the
character level. The difference
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
How about U+1E1C, U+1E1D
Hebrew U+05B1
U+1E4E, U+1E4F
I don't know.
U+1E64, U+1E65, U+1E66, U+1E67 ?
Hebrew U+FB2D and U+FB2C (in this order)
Which transliteration systems are they from?
ISO 259 (1984)
Thank you Andreas.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:33 AM, Andreas Prilop
prilop4...@trashmail.net wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
How about U+1E1C, U+1E1D
Hebrew U+05B1
U+1E4E, U+1E4F
I don't know.
U+1E64, U+1E65, U+1E66, U+1E67 ?
Hebrew U+FB2D and U+FB2C (in this
On Wed, 16 May 2012, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
U+1E00 and U+1E01 are also a mystery.
You can find letter a with ring below in the title
Grammar of the Pasto or language of the Afghans
by Ernest Trumpp, published 1873.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22P%E1%B8%81%E1%B9%A3%CC%8Ct%C5%8D%22
I don't
On Thu, 17 May 2012 21:32:19 -0700
Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, but assuming we didn't add 0FB2+0F71, why can't we add the
contraction 0FB2+0F81 and have the 0334 and any other non-starter be
handled via discontiguous matching?
Time for me to make a pronouncement on
Back to first principles.
UCA conformance requires getting the same results as the Main Algorithm.
This can be done easily with NFD input text, or by implementing Step 1
which normalizes the input to NFD. Everything else is a performance
optimization, and there are trade-offs.
We also want
On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:51:34 -0700
Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote:
There is nothing that requires us to get correct results *without
normalization* for all FCD strings or any other particular input
conditions (except NFD input).
So long as you don't claim conformance to the CLDR
There is an action item from the UTC and CLDR committees to clarify the
meanings of the setting; they are supposed to allow some degree of
variation.
--
Mark https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**
On Fri, May 18,
On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:51:34 -0700
Markus Scherer markus@gmail.com wrote:
On inspection, we think we can do better (and want to), probably by
adding overlap contractions. If we get into trouble with that, we
will think of alternatives. One is to decompose more characters even
in FCD
10 matches
Mail list logo
