On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham
wrote:
Where, if anywhere, is the encoding of plain text specified? I am
particularly concerned with the arrangement of the code sequences for
non-spacing abstract characters once one has determined an encoding for
the abstra
What I really wish we had would be a machine readable set of regexes for
each complex script (and for each language-script combination that is
different than the default for that script).
Such a regex R could be used for determining the well-formed ordering of
code points within words. The regex n
On 9 Jan 2017, at 22:34, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> On 1/9/2017 1:39 PM, Marcel Schneider wrote:
>> Iʼm saddened to have fallen into a monologue. Thus Iʼll quickly debrief
>> the arguments opposed so far, to check whether Iʼm missing some point
>>
> There's a good reason for that. You are advocat
Le 10/01/2017 à 12:03, Alastair Houghton a écrit :
That’s part of it, but I think also that the thread is increasingly verbose and
hard to follow.
I still think that the idea of adding U+ SUPERSCRIPT and U+ SUBSCRIPT
might be worth contemplating; it would seem to provide a good answer
These kinds of regexes are being
developed in various contexts.
For example, there's a group developing regexes for Indic scripts
for use with CSS. That effort focuses on the syllable, not least
because concepts like "first-letter" used in CSS are not relev
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:11:41 +0100
Mark Davis ☕️ wrote:
> What I really wish we had would be a machine readable set of regexes
> for each complex script (and for each language-script combination
> that is different than the default for that script).
What would the status of these regexes be? Fo
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:06:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
I'll take your last point first.
>> One might hope that the subsection about 'logical order' in TUS 9.0
>> Section 2.2 Unicode Design Principles would help, but:
>> 1) Section 3 'Conformanc
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +
Alastair Houghton wrote:
> Does anyone besides Marcel have any input on that idea? Is it worth
> writing a proposal to add SUPERSCRIPT and SUBSCRIPT? To give some
> examples:
>
> S^{té}
>
> U+0053 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER S
> U+0074 LATIN SMALL LETTER T
>
On 1/10/2017 12:44 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:06:05 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 1/9/2017 2:24 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
I'll take your last point first.
One might hope that the subsection about 'logical order' in TUS 9.0
Section 2.2 Unicode Design Principles w
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:12:47 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Unicode clearly doesn't forbid most sequences in complex scripts,
> even if they cannot be expected to render properly and otherwise
> would stump the native reader.
Is this expectation based on sequence enforcement in the renderer? The
On 1/10/2017 2:54 PM, Richard Wordingham wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 13:12:47 -0800
Asmus Freytag wrote:
Unicode clearly doesn't forbid most sequences in complex scripts,
even if they cannot be expected to render properly and otherwise
would stump the native reader.
Is this expectation based o
On Mon, 9 Jan 2017 14:34:17 -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
[…]
> Just get over it […]
We are facing a strong user demand since early standards.
Actually I cannot. Sorry.
Thank you however for all of your feedback.
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:03:24 +, Alastair Houghton wrote:
[…]
> […] I think also
12 matches
Mail list logo