On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > How about just supporting these: ISO646-PT, ISO10646-UTF-1,
>> > NATS-SEFI and HP-DeskTop?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Assuming these are
>> properly registered charsets, it seems like a very narrow range to
>> support.
>
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 2001-07-13 17:32:55 Pacific Daylight Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> IIRC Euro (i.e. ISO-8859-1) support will be mandated by the
>> EU in one form or another (i.e. governmental agencies will not be
>> allowed to use soft
On Sat, 14 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Gaute B Strokkenes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> No way. Any mail client that is sufficiently clever to understand
>> UTF-8 should understand all valid and registered MIME-charsets.
>> After all, conversion libraries ar
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>> Those are MOJIBAKE for my SIG.
>
> Which is what you deserve for not sending UTF-8. Until you
> upgrade your mailer, your name wil be
>"?@?š‚¶‚イ‚¢‚Á‚¿‚á‚ñ?š". :-p
No way. Any
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jungshik,
>
>> What makes me annoyed is that programs like Eudora lie about
>> MIME charset (i.e. it declares it's sending out ISO 8859-1 while it
>> actually sends out Windows-1252).
>
> I have no problem sending it our with a " Windows-1252" char
On Fri, 13 Jul 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Submissions should be sent by e-mail to either of the following
> addresses:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> They should use ASCII,
Oh, the irony...
[Sorry, I just couldn't resist.]
> non-compressed text and the following
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [earlier correspondents]
>>> Personally, I think that the codecs should report an error in the
>>> appropriate fashion when presented with a python unicode string
>>> which contains values that are not allowed, such as lone
>>> surrogates.
>>
>>
[I'm CC-ing the unicode list again because I'm doing some fairly
sophisticated interpretation of the Unicode conformance requirements
below and I'd like to have someone with more experience with this
check my reasoning.]
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> This is wrong. It is a bu
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MAL and Gaute,
>
> Can I please take the middle ground (and risk having both of you
> throw things at me?
>
> => Lone surrogates are not 'true Unicode char points
> in their own right' [MAL] -- they don't represent characters.
I think you're mis
[I'm cc:-ing the unicode list to make sure that I've gotten my
terminology right, and to solicit comments
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tim Peters wrote:
>>
>> [M.-A. Lemburg]
>> > ...
>> > 2. What to do when slicing of Unicode strings would break
>> >a surrogate pair ?
>>
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. Do you mean adding a
> '>' at the beginning of each line and replying in place? If so then
> replying to a 300+ line missive is a lot of hand editing. It is
> especially nasty when lines have to be r
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since he wants math symbols on his buttons, which presumably would
> not require localization, using images is not really blasphemous.
Sorry. Mathematical notation can vary quite widely.
--
Gaute Strokkeneshttp://www.srcf.
On Thu, 17 May 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I seem to recall not long ago hearing of some machine architechtures
> that have used large bytes, i.e. high number of bits per byte. I
> think at some point I heard mention of a 36-bit byte, but one of my
> colleagues questioned that (he once worked
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2001 11:24:30 AM unicode-bounce wrote:
>
> Hello, Unicode-bounce!
>
>>Taking as an example that msg just come in from Juliusz (no
>>reflection on him, just using his mail as an example), please see
>>its headers (below) and note that unl
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Better if you also keep the distinction between "octet" (a series of
> 8 bits) and "byte" (a series of n bits, where n is often but NOT
> always 8).
When is a byte not eight bits?
--
Gaute Strokkeneshttp://www.srcf.ucam.o
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Your message has been rejected because it appears to quote
> too extensively from other posts.
>
> Please review the text of your message and try to reduce the
> volume of quotations from other messages. It is usually not
> necessary to quote v
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At 03:38 AM 3/22/01 +, Christopher John Fynn wrote:
>>But you can also filter mails based on the To: header "To:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]" - every mail client I've seen that supports
>>filtering lets you filter based on that header.
>
> Except if
Please fix your line lengths. Your lines are much longer than 80
characters.
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>In addition, it doesn't look too well if you cannot run your own
>>lists. I mean, you can't imagine that the Unicode web site moves
>>over to GeoCities, can you? ;-)
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> At 05:53 PM 3/21/01 +0100, you wrote:
>>I see that the list software now appends [unicode] to all subject
>>lines. This is very annoying, and not very useful, since those who
>>wish to filter their mail and put posts from this list in a folder
>
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I agree with the ads-issue but you will get used with that little
> four-liner.
This is a proof by blatant assertion. I'm on a couple of Yahoo lists,
and I really hate the ads.
> Many people have a longer signature (also on this list).
Well,
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dear Unicode subscribers:
>
> This week Parvati and I will be moving the Unicode
> mail list to a new server with new mail software.
> I hope the move goes smoothly, but as you know
> the best laid plans of mice and machines cough and
> sputter in
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Apropos UTF-8:
>
> While waiting for software (Mac or Unix) that makes me able to
> handle UTF-8 (input, sort, wc, such things), I try to put up UTF-8
> web pages myself. I look at the algorithm of p. 47 in the Unicode
> Book, and convert any Ux
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Otto Stolz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
>> Dear Unicoders,
>>
>> again, I have inadvertently sent a contribution to a member rather
>> than to the whole list, because the Unicode list sets the Reply-to
>> header in an utmost inconvenient an
23 matches
Mail list logo
