Hi.
I personally do not see why these supplemental characters cannot be created,
as done for other Latin-1 characters
(http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0080.pdf
I'm a bit confused though, and have a question: how are characters from current
Marshallese texts and from new texts with the ne
This will also happen with the new confusable introduced by a new separate
and undecomposable letter... I don't see where your point is.
Already Marshellese documents are encoded using the existing cedilla, even
if you don't like it, and it still works correctly for most users, even if
the cedila l
On 21 Jun 2013, at 16:20, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't believe that you can language-tag individual file names for
>> such display as that is markup.
>
> Why do you need to? You only need one language, it is not like file names are
> multilingual high quality text books where every fi
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 04:00:20PM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
> Yeah, I don't believe that you can language-tag individual file names
> for such display as that is markup.
Why do you need to? You only need one language, it is not like file
names are multilingual high quality text books where e
On 21 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Khaled Hosny wrote:
>> Try this in the file system.
>
> The file system embeds visual rendering of text? You probably mean the file
> manager
The Finder.
> my file manager shows me locale-dependant glyph variants without any special
> setup (apart from choosing a f
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 02:27:38PM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 14:06, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
>
> > It is not the character model that is not reliable, it is the application.
> > If you application doesn't support locale settings and locale specific
> > font features, fix th
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2013, at 07:01, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
>
>> About positioning:
>> Michael, you mentioned the issue of positioning of the diacritic, this
>> is a font issue not a character issue. I mentioned Navajo ogonek
>> because that is how i
Dominikus Dittes Scherkl schrieb:
>Why not instead encoding a new combining "MARSHALLESE CEDILLA"
>that ought to be used with g, k, l, m, r and their uppercase counterparts?
This is not a good idea, because the combining "MARSHALLESE CEDILLA" can be
combined with the letter C, too.
This creates
On 21 Jun 2013, at 11:26, Dominikus Dittes Scherkl wrote:
> Why not instead encoding a new combining "MARSHALLESE CEDILLA"
> that ought to be used with g, k, l, m, r and their uppercase counterparts?
Because then there would be tree confusable ways of writing all this data. N
WITH COMMA BELOW (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 21.06.2013 11:17, schrieb "Jörg Knappen":
> The first reason is to solve this problem completely and not only to
> resolve a Latvian-Marshallese conflict and leave some other
> exceptions for later.
>
> The second reason is that the letter g, k, l,
Micheal Everson schrieb:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA
ATTACHED for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
>>
>>> Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "proper" cedilla attached.
>>
>> Maybe my english wasn't perfect here;
On 21 Jun 2013, at 09:09, "Jörg Knappen" wrote:
>>> * Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
>>> for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
>
>> Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "proper" cedilla attached.
>
> Maybe my english w
Micheal Everson schrieb:
>> My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
>>
>> * Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
>> for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
> Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "proper" cedilla attache
On 21 Jun 2013, at 08:23, "Jörg Knappen" wrote:
> My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
>
> * Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED
> for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode.
Why? Latvian and Livonian don't use letters with "pro
On 21 Jun 2013, at 07:01, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> About positioning:
> Michael, you mentioned the issue of positioning of the diacritic, this
> is a font issue not a character issue. I mentioned Navajo ogonek
> because that is how it solves the issue of positioning, custom Navajo
> fonts have ce
My opinion on the cedilla mess is the following:
* Add preemptively LATIN [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER * WITH CEDILLA ATTACHED for every Latvian/Livonian character currently in UNicode. (Don't use terms like MARSHALLESE [CAPITAL|LOWERCASE] LETTER [M|N] -- such entities don't exist from a characte
16 matches
Mail list logo
