Actually, I just noticed that Hupa and Yurok have TLE sorted after Y, so point
ϛʹ is moot.
—Ben Scarborough
I do have a few comments and questions I'd like to make about N4262.
αʹ) I think LATIN LETTER TURNED-E R should be disunified from U+025A LATIN
LETTER SCHWA WITH HOOK. I don't think the identity of the new capital character
matches the established identity of U+025A. Of the five glyphs provided
On May 28, 2012, at 01:52, Michael Everson wrote:
> There are many blorts. I've discovered some working with Unifon. I haven't
> exactly had much support from the UTC with what I've discovered. I've found
> the usual posturing about possible unifications with other scripts.
>
> I went in saying,
On May 22, 2012, at 08:18, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> Any reason why the glyph of the current existing character 20A4 ₤ LIRA
> SIGN could not have been changed instead? The glyph is similar to that
> of 00A3 £ POUND SIGN, and 20A4 was *anyway* not used in favour of
> 00A3, so it's not as if any oth
On 2012.04.19 11:28 AM, Ben Monroe wrote:
> A few examples of what I am looking for:
>
> mol 'horse': ㅁ (m) + ㆍ(o) + ㄹ(l).
> Should be stacked from top to bottom.
> The vowel o (U+318D) is now obsolete.
Just to point out, the jamo at U+3131 to U+318E are characters added for
compatibility with
On 2012.04.16 12:05 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
> The first key document is:
>
> WG2 N754, Review of repertoire, by Masami Hasegawa, dated September 1991.
> (Mark Davis and I assisted Hasegawa-san in pulling together the lists in this
> document.)
>
> That document lists *all* of the Latin composite le
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 20:56, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> But the document cited by Denis gives a much more productive way that
> allows stacking any kind of letters with its diacritics. There won't
> be enough space in the BMP for such Latin supplements.
Then put them in the SMP. Or is "SMP" still a
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 19:09, Michael Everson wrote:
>No, because both the combining-a and the combining-diaeresis are bound to the
>base letter; the combining diaeresis is not bound to the combining-a.
Just like the proposed U+1ABB COMBINING PARENTHESIS ABOVE will be bound to the
base letter,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 19:35, Denis Jacquerye wrote:
> According to ftp://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/WG2/docs/n2463.doc the
> Cyrillic Selkup OE is mapped to Latin OE:
> CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SELKUP O E to U+0153 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE OE
> CYRILLIC CAPITAL LETTER SELKUP O E to U+0152 LATIN CAPITAL LIGATU
I remember reading long ago that a capital counterpart of U+0138 LATIN SMALL
LETTER KRA had been proposed, but was rejected because it could be represented
as (I believe it was) the sequence . Unfortunately, I can't find the details now, so
I'm not sure if that's the right sequence, but it was s
My biggest issue with N4106 is that COMBINING LIGHT CENTRALIZATION STROKE BELOW
and COMBINING STRONG CENTRALIZATION STROKE BELOW are given combining class 220
(below). The only reason this was done was so they could be used with the
proposed COMBINING PARENTHESIS BELOW—that's it. N4106 even asks
On 2011.09.28 14:47, delex r wrote:
>"Complelling case"... Pls let us be explained more about it ?
>From my understanding, you would have to prove that there is a critical
>orthographic distinction between ক্ষ and ক্+ষ that is important to the
>language.
Please understand that just because
On 2011.09.27 22:56, delex r wrote:
>I hope a proposal will come in near future to include an additional letter
>'Khya' which is as per our (Assamese)script is not considered as a
>biconsonantal conjunct as in Devanagari 0915 (Hex) + 0937 (Hex)and instead
>given a full fledged letter status.( I
On 2011.09.01 13:38, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>No. I'm firmly with you, I support the requirement for 1 (ONE) alias for
>control codes because they don't have names, but are used in
>environments where the need a string identifier other than a code point.
>(Just like regular characters, but even more s
Are name aliases exempted from the normal character naming conventions? I ask
because four of the entries have words that begin with numbers.
008E;SINGLE-SHIFT 2;control
008F;SINGLE-SHIFT 3;control
0091;PRIVATE USE 1;control
0092;PRIVATE USE 2;control
—Ben Scarborough
On 20 Aug 2011, at 00:35, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>And now we think that a little over a million is enough for everyone,
>just as they thought in the late 1980s that 16 bits is enough for everyone.
Whenever somebody talks about needing 31 bits for Unicode, I always think of
the hypothetical situ
I believe that the key to getting these characters encoded is
establishing that there is a vital semantic importance to the character
that is lost if it is stripped away. This is the grounds for the
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block.
Unfortunately, figures 1 and 2 from JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3915
17 matches
Mail list logo
