Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

On 6/5/2015 10:29 AM, John D. Burger wrote: Linguistically, "don't" and friends pass all the diagnostics that indicate they're single words. If I am not mistaken, the french "pomme de terre" also passes the diagnostics. So we need a new space character. Eric.

Re: ucd beta, stable filenames

On 6/5/2015 8:48 AM, Daniel Bünzli wrote: Hello, Would it be possible in the future to publish the latest version of the ucd files without the -X.Y.ZdW suffixes under a fixed URI like http://www.unicode.org/Public/beta/ and/or simply publish it in the version directory but without the suff

Re: Tag characters and in-line graphics (from Tag characters)

On 06/05/2015 11:36 AM, Doug Ewell wrote: At no point, however, did I suppose that a font with my alphabet, or any of the jillions of others that have been invented "during a boring day in class" (see Omniglot for tons of examples), should be silently downloaded to a user's computer, consuming ba

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 17:34 , Markus Scherer wrote: > > Looks all wrong to me. > > "don’t" is a contraction of two words, it is not one word. Yes it is. Is "keyboard" two words? How about "newspaper"? If "don't" is two words, please tell me what two words make up "won't"? (Hint, neither of th

Re: ucd beta, stable filenames

Le vendredi, 5 juin 2015 à 16:48, Daniel Bünzli a écrit : > and/or simply publish it in the version directory but without the suffixes > (like the ucdxml files do). Or both with and without the suffix of course. Daniel

ucd beta, stable filenames

Hello, Would it be possible in the future to publish the latest version of the ucd files without the -X.Y.ZdW suffixes under a fixed URI like http://www.unicode.org/Public/beta/ and/or simply publish it in the version directory but without the suffixes (like the ucdxml files do). With the

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

QSJN 4 UKR wrote: > And programmers say "That's wrong! We can't understand that". Just are > you so stupid if you can't! You know, we really aren't all like that. Some of us actually try to meet user needs. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸

Re: Tag characters and in-line graphics (from Tag characters)

I wrote, crumpled up, and threw away about three different responses. I thought about ISO 2022 and about accessing the web for every PUA character, as Asmus mentioned, and about the size of the user base, as Martin mentioned. I thought about character properties and about ephemerality. I didn't th

http://✈🎰💸.ws

Re: http://✈🎰💸.ws

Whoops, sent too soon. A surprise: http://✈🎰💸.ws Mark *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ wrote: > >

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

I don’t have a particular position staked out. But to this discussion should be added the very interesting work done by Zwicky and Pullum arguing that the apostrophe is the 27th letter of the Latin alphabet. Neither U+2019 nor U+02BC would satisfy that position. See: Zwicky and Pullum 1983 Zwic

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 2:43 AM QSJN 4 UKR wrote: > The conflict is between linguists and programmers. No, it's not. > Yes it is ambiguous! > It is. It just is! Linguists say "It is. We see that. We know that". > "Now you programmers find some way to deal with that so you can produce useful c

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

Markus Scherer wrote: >> How are normal users supposed to find both U+2019 and U+02BC on their >> keyboards, and how are they supposed to deal with incorrect usage? I replied: > Would it be possible to have wordprocessing software where one uses CONTROL > APOSTROPHE for U+2019 and CONTROL SHIFT A

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 12:16 AM Leo Broukhis wrote: > I agree that conflating apostrophes and quotes is a source of > problems, however, existence of the MODIFIER LETTER [same glyph as > used for English contractions] in Unicode is a coincidence which > should not have an effect on usage of apost

Re: Tag characters and in-line graphics (from Tag characters)

Asmus Freytag wrote about security issues. This is interesting reading and I have learned a lot from the post about various security issues. Whilst the post is in this thread and follows from a post in this thread, the topic has seemed to moved to the Custom characters thread. I note that what yo

Re: Tag characters and in-line graphics (from Tag characters)

On 6/4/2015 17:03 , "Chris" wrote: This whole discussion is about the fact that it would be technically possible to have private character sets and private agreements that your OS downloads without the user being aware of it. The sticky issues are not the questions of how to make available fo

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

Markus Scherer wrote: > How are normal users supposed to find both U+2019 and U+02BC on their > keyboards, and how are they supposed to deal with incorrect usage? Would it be possible to have wordprocessing software where one uses CONTROL APOSTROPHE for U+2019 and CONTROL SHIFT APOSTROPHE for U+0

Re: Tag characters and in-line graphics (from Tag characters)

On 2015/06/04 17:03, Chris wrote: I wish Steve Jobs was here to give this lecture. Well, if Steve Jobs were still around, he could think about whether (and how many) users really want their private characters, and whether it was worth the time to have his engineers working on the solution. I

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

The conflict is between linguists and programmers. In plain text apostrophe is a punctuation used instead letters (unreadable, one or more) or as separator for avoid connecting letters into ligature or syllable, between parts of composite word as well as inside the simple word, or finally, as quota

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

> But the point was that treating hyphens as parts of words is not generally a > wrong thing. That brings us back to my original question: where's MODIFIER LETTER HYPHEN, then? A word is a sequence of letters, isn't it? :) I agree that conflating apostrophes and quotes is a source of problems, h

Re: Another take on the English apostrophe in Unicode

On June 4, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:25 PM, David Starner wrote: > >Hyphens generally make multiple words into one anyway. There's not really >multiple hyphens the way there's separate quotes and apostrophes. > >Generally, but not always, just as apo