On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
>
> On 10/6/2016 12:44 PM, Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> Some representatives of the WFCC have proposed alternate arrangements that
> assume there will be a need for bitwise operations to covert between the
> existing chess symbols in the Miscellaneo
Except that it states at the very start of that file "this file should not be
parsed for machine-readable information."
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Andrew West wrote:
> On 7 October 2016 at 23:31, Doug Ewell wrote:
> >
> > Well, "treacherous" is right. I'd hesitate to trust an algorithm to
On 7 October 2016 at 23:31, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
> Well, "treacherous" is right. I'd hesitate to trust an algorithm to
> recognize PLANCK CONSTANT as the character name that logically fits
> between MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL G and MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL I.
Well, it could be picked up from that
Andrew West wrote:
> Well, it could be picked up from that most treacherous of Unicode data
> files http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NamesList.txt
Even then, you have:
...
1D454 MATHEMATICAL ITALIC SMALL G
# 0067 latin small letter g
1D455
x (planck constant - 210E)
1D
Richard Wordingham wrote:
>> I can't find anything in the UCD that distinguishes one "font
>> variant" from another (UnicodeData.txt shown as an example):
>
> It's in that most treacherous of properties, the character's name.
Well, "treacherous" is right. I'd hesitate to trust an algorithm to
rec
On Fri, 07 Oct 2016 09:06:31 -0700
"Doug Ewell" wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > Perhaps there is just enough information in the UCD to allow
> > exhaustive, automated tests.
> I can't find anything in the UCD that distinguishes one "font variant"
> from another (UnicodeData.txt shown as
HI Neil,
I tend to prefer refering to them as Pseudo-Unicode solutions, rather than
hacked fonts or adhoc fonts, and differentiating them from legacy or 8-bit
solutions.
My preferred approach would to be to treat them as a separate encoding. But
I doubt that will likely happen.
It doesn't help t
Hi Mark,
The converters would be interesting to see, and would be personally useful
to me.
But the type of keyboard layouts and input frameworks reflected in CLDR
have limited bearing on issues related to the uptake of Unicode for Myanmar
script.
Andrew
On 7 Oct 2016 17:54, "Mark Davis ☕️" wro
Hi Denis,
In some ways, it was easier. But looking at each language, the issues seem
to be have a slightly different slant.
Sgaw Karen is interesting in comparison to Burmese. There is some use of
the hacked Zwekabin font by bloggers, but most content, and key media still
use 8 bit fonts. Althoug
On 7 Oct 2016 17:08, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
>
> Hello Andrew,
>
>
> On 2016/10/07 11:11, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> Considering the mess that adhoc fonts create. What is the best way
forward?
>
>
> That's very clear: Use Unicode.
>
LOL, thanks Martin. That has been my position for a long ti
Hmm... "filling in Latin alphabet encoding gaps without clear use cases" is
exactly what was done for the blackboard bold letters.
I scarcely think that a use case was submitted for every one of the
blackboard bold etc letters in the mathematical set; merely the use of
blackboard bold for a general
On 10/7/2016 11:25 AM, Oren Watson wrote:
Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in
the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of
unicode for new linguistic theories and id
Oren Watson wrote:
> Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
> remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in
> the SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of
> unicode for new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the
On 7 Oct 2016, at 19:25, Oren Watson wrote:
>
> Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
> remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the
> SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for
> new linguistic theo
Would it be appropriate to submit an omnibus proposal for encoding all
remaining english letters in subscript, small caps, and superscript in the
SMP for the purpose of not arbitrarily constraining the use of unicode for
new linguistic theories and ideas, similar to the mathematical characters?
su
> On 7 Oct 2016, at 18:06, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I can't find anything in the UCD that distinguishes one "font variant"
> from another (UnicodeData.txt shown as an example):
>
> 1D400;MATHEMATICAL BOLD CAPITAL A;Lu;0;L; 0041N;
> 1D434;MATHEMATICAL ITALIC CAPITAL A;Lu;0;L; 0041N;
>
Marcel Schneider wrote:
> According to my hypothesis and while waiting, I believe that
> the intent of the gap kept in the superscript lowercase range,
> is to maintain a limitation to the performance of plain text.
> I don't see very well how to apply Hanlon's razor here, because
> there seems to
Richard Wordingham wrote:
> Yes, it's a trade-off. The application I had in mind is converting
> between mathematical letter variants and their 'plain' forms.
Long-time list members might remember a Windows utility I wrote to
convert between normal Unicode text and Mathematical Alphanumeric
Symbo
On 07/10/16 07:42, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
In may case people resort to these hacks because it is an easier short term
solution. All they have to do is use a specific font. They don't have to
switch or find and install a keyboard layout and they don't have to upgrade
to an OS that supports their s
> On 7 Oct 2016, at 09:27, Garth Wallace wrote:
>
> Unicode doesn't really address chess piece properties like white/black beyond
> naming conventions.
>From the formal point of view, Unicode only assigns character numbers (code
>points), which gets a binary representation first when encoded,
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Shawn Steele
wrote:
> Presumably a table-based approach would merely require rerunning the
> table-building script from the UCD when new versions were released.
>
For casing, sure, but that's not really relevant in this context, since
Unicode doesn't really addres
On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 21:18:15 -0400
Oren Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Richard Wordingham <
> richard.wording...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Yes, it's a trade-off. The application I had in mind is converting
> > between mathematical letter variants and their 'plain' forms.
> > Perh
22 matches
Mail list logo