This discussion has veered close enough to my pet project (the Shwa
script) to comment.
I plan to implement it in the PUA, both to demonstrate its value and
viability and to find the problems and correct them before they get
frozen into Unicode (if ever). I accept that means an eventual
German does both, so there may be a CLDR locale for the choice you need.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
Swedish and Finnish treat ä and ö as separate letters of the alphabet, but
sort them at the end after z.
Volapük sorts a ä b c d e f g h i j k
,
and ü separate after u.
does anyone know if any other language treats ä/ö/ü in the same way?
Am 2012-01-01 16:54, schrieb Peter Cyrus:
German does both,
Not really.
According to DIN 5007,
German features two different sort orders:
• In lists of personal names, Ä, Ö, Ü may be sorted
I'm sure this is explained somewhere, but I can't find it.
Must blocks leave the first and last codepoints unassigned?
Ken, you mention defined markup constructions, but nothing would prevent
specialized rendering software from, for example, connecting a left half
mark with the corresponding right half mark via titlo, even though the text
is still only plain text with no markup, right? The titlo would simply not
of even OpenType advancexd
typography features.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote:
On 11/18/2011 11:21 AM, Peter Cyrus wrote:
Ken, you mention defined markup constructions, but nothing would
prevent specialized rendering software from, for example, connecting
I've only been on this list for some months, and I only came to it with my
own little project in mind, but it occurs to me, as I follow all these
threads, that Unicode might benefit from a more flexible process of
adaptation, of Unicodification. The model would be an asymptotic approach
to
I guess what I'm proposing is that the proposed allocations be implemented,
so that problems may be unearthed, even as the users accept that the
standard is still only provisional.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
Peter,
in principle, the idea of a
, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Richard Wordingham
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:37:20 +0200
Peter Cyrus pcy...@alivox.net wrote:
Perhaps, awkwardly. But that is ultimately equivalent to marking the
gait on every letter, in which case I probably wouldn't need to
distinguish
It's been done already : the International Phonetic Alphabet. If we
all just wrote in that, it would make Unicode much easier to
implement, too.
I'm just working on Plan B, just in case.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Ken Whistler k...@sybase.com wrote:
On 10/17/2011 1:23 AM, Peter Cyrus
Your idea of propagation seems worth exploring - thanks!
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Richard Wordingham
richard.wording...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 21:37:20 +0200
Peter Cyrus pcy...@alivox.net wrote:
Perhaps, awkwardly. But that is ultimately equivalent to marking
Is there a definition or guideline for the distinction between plain
text and rich text?
For example, in the expression 3², the exponent is a single character,
superscript two. Semantically, this expression is equivalent to
3^2, using a visible character to indicate exponentiation and then
Ken, your explanation seems more permissive than I had anticipated.
Your example of 3sup2/sup would seem to me at risk of behaving
in unforeseen ways if, for instance, it were split up. Wouldn't it
match a string up 2? Wouldn't it fail to match 3²? I guess I
thought that plain text should be
13 matches
Mail list logo
