Evolution of writing : pictures -> letters -> emojis :-)

https://x0r.be/@szbalint/99834795406169086

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:59:53PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma wrote a message of 54 lines which said: > Sorry but "UNICODE" does fit within those rules doesn't it? I doubt that the Departement of Motor Vehicles will accept "but it is in category Ll" as a good reason :-)

Re: UNICODE vehicle vanity registration?

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:44:06PM +0530, Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote a message of 6 lines which said: > Given that in the US vanity vehicle registrations with arbitrary > alphanumeric sequences upto 7 characters are permitted (I am correct > I hope?), I wonder

[HUMOR] Proof that emojis are useful

Nice scientific info, and with emojis : https://twitter.com/biolojical/status/956953421130514432

Re: Emoji Feminism - The New York Times

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 08:14:33AM -0700, Eric Muller wrote a message of 1 lines which said: > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/emoji-feminism.html?_r=0 Funny (I love penguins), but the New York Times should read UTR #51, section 2.1

Re: Unicode password mapping for crypto standard

On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 09:30:32PM -0800, Sean Leonard wrote a message of 120 lines which said: > how to take the Unicode input and get a consistent and reasonable > stream of bits out on both ends. For example: should the password be > case folded, converted to

Re: Unicode in passwords

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 10:53:00PM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote a message of 72 lines which said: > it is highly preferable to extend the character repertoire to > Unicode and accept letters in NFKC form and unified by case folding As I said before, "the ship has sailed".

Re: Unicode in passwords

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:57:51PM +0900, Yoriyuki Yamagata wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > FYI, IETF is working on this issue. See Internet Draft > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis-17 based > on PRECIS framework RFC 7564

Re: Unicode in passwords

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 04:15:30PM -0700, Clark S. Cox III wrote a message of 73 lines which said: > You really wouldn’t want “Schlüssel” and “Schlüssel” being different > passwords, would you? (assuming that my mail client and/or OS is not > interfering, the first is

In 2013, there are still programs with huge Unicode bugs :-(

This one is incredible: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922433

An Unicode joke in 140 characters

https://twitter.com/pseudomonas/status/308554021529059329

Re: Emoji domains

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 09:55:11PM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmo...@in-nomine.org wrote a message of 14 lines which said: So I guess they did not check the codepoint categories in their validation step then? Probably. People are free to ignore RFCs (or UTRs).

Re: Emoji domains

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 03:47:04AM +0600, Christopher Fynn chris.f...@gmail.com wrote a message of 7 lines which said: Come to think of it, Unicode could probably fund itself by selling code points for this ;-) RFC 5241 already explored a similar idea http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt

Re: Emoji domains

On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 01:30:04PM +0100, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote a message of 54 lines which said: But the ICANN normally has a signed contract with the registry Certainly not. Not with the vast majority of TLD (for instance, they do not have one with .fr). The same

Re: Emoji domains

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven asmo...@in-nomine.org wrote a message of 11 lines which said: IDN and emoji combined brings you the wonderful domain of: Note that it is a direct violation of RFC 5892. U+1F4A9, being of category So, should be

Re: First posting to list: Unicode.org: unicode - punycode converter tool?

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:52:17AM -0700, Mark Davis ? m...@macchiato.com wrote a message of 305 lines which said: To prevent serious problems, it's recommended that any registrar that allows ß to do the following: DENIC, the .de registry, choosed a different way:

Re: First posting to list: Unicode.org: unicode - punycode converter tool?

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 07:01:22PM +0200, JP Blankert (thuis PC based) jpblank...@zonnet.nl wrote a message of 147 lines which said: I am a domain name (especially: IDN) expert. A domain name (especially IDN) expert who does not know that ß was mapped in IDNA 2003 but not in IDNA 2008?

Re: Derived age regexp

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 06:19:59PM -0400, Tim Greenwood timo...@greenwood.name wrote a message of 23 lines which said: Is there any regular expression - in perl, or elsewhere, that enables searching on the derived age? I want to find all characters in a file added since Unicode 4.1. I use

Re: Python and Unicode (was Re: Three new Technical Notes posted)

On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:10:02PM +0900, Jungshik Shin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: I was a bit surprised to find that Python was listed as using UTF-16 (for the internal representation) Indeed, this is wrong, it is a compilation option. Here is the output of

Re: Python and Unicode (was Re: Three new Technical Notes posted)

On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:04:33PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 20 lines which said: ~/tmp/python2.3 % ./configure --help | grep -i unicode --enable-unicode[=ucs[24]] Enable Unicode strings (default is yes) I'm more confused

Re: Unicode 4.0 Poster

On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 06:53:25PM -0800, Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 24 lines which said: Good test of your browser! (Mozilla Firebird croaks on it. Opera works, but has ugly formatting. IE works. Haven't tried any others.) On my machine, it works fine, it is not even

Re: unicode on Linux

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:56:16AM -0700, Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 22 lines which said: In this page, Markus Kuhn is damaging his credibility by continuing to refer in several places to Unicode 3.0, although the page was updated some time after the release of

Re: unicode on Linux

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:32:28AM -0400, Edward H. Trager [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 118 lines which said: I think there can be big debates about whether a Linux (or any *nix kernel, for that matter) has any business normalizing file names. Personally I think Unicode

Re: unicode on Linux

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:14:22PM +0200, Stefan Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines which said: Just wondering if anybody knowss how unicode is on Linux? Very good support. Very optimistic. Kernel * 1) File names in Unicode: no (well, the Linux kernel is 8-bits

Re: Non-ascii string processing?

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 12:09:34PM +0200, Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 14 lines which said: What strlen() cannot do is countîng the number of *characters* in a string. But who cares? I can imagine very few situations where someone such an information would be useful.

Re: Non-ascii string processing?

On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 01:52:26PM +0200, Marco Cimarosti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 51 lines which said: a word like élite is always counted as five characters, regardless that it might be encoded as six Unicode characters. I assume that everybody on this list knows that you

Re: need help understanding diacritical encoding

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:37:20PM -0400, Steve Pruitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 8 lines which said: I have a form that posts diacritical characters. For example, when my browser has the encoding set to utf-8 ^

RFC about IDN (domain names in Unicode) issued at last

One of the most painful and frustrating IETF efforts. Over, at last. As soon as registries and registrars accept it, you will be able to register (but not to use, not right now) domain names in Unicode. RFC 3490 : Internationalizing Domain Names in Applications (IDNA) RFC 3491 : Nameprep: A

Christmas gift from the IETF: stringprep

Those who will want to actually use it may see the libstringprep library URL:gttp://www.josefsson.org/libstringprep/. Network Working Group P. Hoffman Request for Comments: 3454IMC VPNC Category: Standards Track

Re: Documenting in Tamil Computing

On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 10:29:14AM -0800, Barry Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 23 lines which said: Actually, it is not Unicode which is nt mature enough. It is SMTP, the core mail transport protocol. It is not 8 bit clean. It is very clear in the RFCs that only 7bit data is

Re: 8-bit MIME (was: Documenting in Tamil Computing)

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 01:28:00PM +0100, Otto Stolz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 65 lines which said: As of November 2002, RFC 2821 is still a Proposed Standard, and RFC 821 is the Standard Protocol (cf. http://rfc.sunsite.dk/rfc/rfc3300.html). For those on the mailing list not