On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 20:19:47 +0100, Philippe Verdy via Unicode wrote:
[…]
> * the core text of the standard (section 3 about conformance and requirements
> is the first thing to adapt).
> There's absolutely no need however to do that as a pure translation, it can
> be rewritten and presented
> wit
Given that the comma and colon are categorized as SContinue,
why is the semicolon also not SContinue?
Also, why is the Greek Question Mark not categorized with
the rest of the question marks?
Why aren't the vertical presentation forms categorized with
the things they are presenting?
Thanks~
~fa
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 02:27:06 +0100 (CET)
Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:
> Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a
> translation, be it only the Nameslist.
For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An
alternative would be paragraph identification
Hi !
I’ll just add two points to the various points raised in the
previous conversation about block coverage :
Le 17/02/2018 à 23:18, Adam Borowski via Unicode a écrit :
Hi!
As a part of Debian fonts team work, we're trying to improve fonts review:
ways to organize them, add metadata, pi
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 09:03:28 +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
>
> > Yes the biggest issue over time, as Ken wrote, is to *maintain* a
> > translation, be it only the Nameslist.
>
> For which accurately determined change bars can work wonders. An
> alternative would be paragraph identif
>From the first line, I guess you mean that all three questions are having
to do with the Sentence_Break property values. Namely:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/proposed.html#Table_Sentence_Break_Property_Values
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr29/proposed.html#SContinue
Mark
On Thu, Mar 8,
For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea.
As long as there are people interested in maintaining the translation,
identifying deltas and easily translating just the deltas would NOT be
difficult, however. Modern computer aided translation tools all use transla
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 04:25:53 -0500, Elsebeth Flarup via Unicode wrote:
>
> For a number of reasons I think translating the standard is a really bad idea.
>
[…]
>
> There are other reasons to not do this.
I assume that the reasons you are thinking of, are congruent with those that
Ken already e
2018-03-08 15:18 GMT+01:00 Frédéric Grosshans via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org>:
> Le 17/02/2018 à 23:18, Adam Borowski via Unicode a écrit :
>
>> Of course, this measure is only rough. A counter example is in the
>> monetary symbol block, where € U+20AC EURO SIGN (in Unicode since 2.1) is
>> muc
On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:42:38 +0800
via Unicode wrote:
> to the best of my knowledge virtually no new characters used just for
> names are under consideration, all the ones that are under
> consideration are from before this century.
What I was interested in was the rate of generation of new
CJK
This still leaves the question about how to write personal names !
IDS alone cannot represent them without enabling some "reasonable"
ligaturing (they don't have to match the exact strokes variants for optimal
placement, or with all possible simplifications).
I'm curious to know how China, Taiwan,
As well how Chinese/Japanese post offices handle addresses written with
sinograms for personal names ? Is the expanded IDS form acceptable for
them, or do they require using Romanized addresses, or phonetic
approximations (Bopomofo in China, Kanas in Japan, Hangul in Korea) ?
2018-03-09 2:17 GMT+0
12 matches
Mail list logo