On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:35:52AM -0700, Stephan Stiller wrote:
> It's occurring to me that the modern analogue to the quirky
> grammarian completing the table for the sake of symmetry would be
> the guy on the Unicode mailing list wanting to add characters to the
> Standard merely to complete a p
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:42:43 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> So **within the UCS**, the Thai script is not an Indic script. There
> was so many existing documents encoded like in TIS sctandards that
> preserving the roundtrop compatibility was judged more essential than
> adopting the logical Indic
Stephan Stiller seems unconvinced by the various attempts to explain the
situation. Perhaps an authoritative explanation of the textual history might
assist.
Stephan demands an answer:
I want to know why the Glossary claims that surrogate code points are
"[r]eserved for use by UTF-16".
Reason
2013/9/19 Asmus Freytag
> The legacy difference was the existence of UCS-2 in parallel with UTF-16.
>
Correct. But UCS-2 is still not extinct, eve if it is no longer used for
exchanging interoperable plain-text.
UCS-2 remains widely used for storing arbitrary data in "strings", without
any one o
On 9/19/2013 6:32 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:57, Stephan Stiller wrote:
In what way does UTF-16 "use" surrogate code points? An encoding form is a
mapping. Let's look at this mapping:
• One inputs scalar values (not surrogate code points).
• The encoding form
On 18 Sep 2013, at 04:57, Stephan Stiller wrote:
> In what way does UTF-16 "use" surrogate code points? An encoding form is a
> mapping. Let's look at this mapping:
> • One inputs scalar values (not surrogate code points).
> • The encoding form will output a short sequence of encodin
Stephan Stiller wrote:
|It's occurring to me that the modern analogue to the quirky grammarian
|completing the table for the sake of symmetry would be the guy on the
|Unicode mailing list wanting to add characters to the Standard merely to
|complete a partial list :-)
I'd love to take part
As far as I am aware, a proper 'null consonant' has only arisen when it
actually represents a glottal stop.
There's ㅇ in hangeul ("Hangul"; Korean). Hebrew ע was supposedly first
pharyngeal [ʕ], though it's nowadays standardly a glottal stop [ʔ] or
null ∅ (and you don't even need need a hiatus
2013/9/19 Richard Wordingham
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:38:05 +0200
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > Don't know what you mean here really, but the Indic scripts work at a
> > core syllabic C-V level, and in order to fit with real languages, it
> > was effectively necessary to fill the holes by invent
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 04:38:05 +0200
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> Don't know what you mean here really, but the Indic scripts work at a
> core syllabic C-V level, and in order to fit with real languages, it
> was effectively necessary to fill the holes by inventing the implicit
> concept of null consonn
10 matches
Mail list logo
