On Tue, 17/7/18, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> Subject: Re: UAX #9: applicability of higher-level protocols to bidi plaintext
> To: unicode@unicode.org
> Date: Tuesday, 17 July, 2018, 3:30 AM
> An interesting ambiguity is "!True" v. "True!
it is not clear whether you are quoting from some agreed standard, quoting from
some other authority, or constructing a classification of your own
whatever the classification, it should be descriptive, and it is best not to be
too pedantic, because practice can vary from region to region, from i
OK, he's no technocrat, but try googling "tony blair kazakhstan"
and in case anybody's wondering what Nazarbayev got for his five million
pounds,
for a partial explanation, check out
https://www.rt.com/uk/340035-blair-strike-kazakhstan-massacre/
it is not known if Blair profferred any ad
. . . and do Russians still do mathematics?
I guess not, since there is no Cyrillic counterpart to the AMS extensions
also, chemists sometimes like to put a superscript over a subscript
will that still have to be done using rich text?
or maybe we need another extension . . . ?
/phil
--
there is another issue with these symbols -- they appear among the
mathematical symbols but, in the reference given, they are used as delimiters
I know of no other application for these symbols other than as delimiters --
are they used as mathematical operators?
and how, in general, would
From: David Starner
To: Andreas Stötzner
>Cc: “unicode“ Discussion
>Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2013, 22:15
>Subject: Re: Suggestion for new dingbats/symbols
>
>
>On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Andreas Stötzner
>wrote:
>> Everything can be dealt with in a serious
scientific way
From: Michel Suignard
>To: philip chastney
>Cc: unicode List
>Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 23:37
>Subject: RE: wrongly identified geometric shape
>
I spent some times analyzing your documents and I can see you are trying to
harmonize the size of the diamond and the s
On 2012/Dec/08 02:34, Michel Suignard wrote:
> From:philip chastney
>> anybody converting a document currently using Wingding fonts to one using
>> Unicode values and Unicode fonts instead, using the transliteration proposed
>> in N 4384, will find their squares somewhat diminished in size (in t
the glyph for U+25A0 BLACK SQUARE, shown in table 2.5 of UTR 25, rev 13, has a
side length of 600, on a body height of 1000
the glyph for w-1110, shown on page 6 of N 4384 (progress on Wingdings), has a
side length of 1184, on a body height of 2048
when scaled identically, the two glyphs diffe
From:William_J_G Overington
To: unicode@unicode.org
Cc: wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2012, 11:29
Subject: Re: Missing geometric shapes
Should the original NO RATING be split into two different items, such as ZERO
RATING and EMPTY RATING?
From: Asmus Freytag
To: Unicode Mailing List
Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012, 1:36
Subject: Variant glyphs for mathematical symbols
Second question:
When the mathematical relations were encoded there were
variants that were unified where the sole difference was
s
From: Asmus Freytag
To: Unicode Mailing List
Sent: Monday, 7 May 2012, 1:36
Subject: Variant glyphs for mathematical symbols
First question:
When the integral symbols were encoded in Unicode there was
discussion of the fact that these were deliberately unif
Dear Sir or Madam:
http://ccatunisie.com/bhrxdfhj.php?fyhCID=48
Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:19:47
_
"There, said she, just by the side of the little fir-tree." (c) Llerifer
wildwiresin
From: Asmus Freytag
To: philip chastney
Cc: unicode List
Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012, 20:39
Subject: Re: N 4115 - "slightly small" is an unecessary concept
Philip,
In your text, you write:
Geometric shapes are normally centred on the math
A little work on the size tables given on page 3 of ISO/IEC
JTC1/SC2/WG2 N 4115, Proposal to add Wingdings and Webdings
Symbols, shows that the two tables used in N4115 (for diamonds
and squares) are near enough identical to each other, and to the
range of sizes illustrated in Table 2.5 in UTR 25 (
Corrected Version::
- Forwarded Message -
From: philip chastney
To: Michael Everson ; unicode Unicode Discussion
Sent: Wednesday, 4 January 2012, 9:57
Subject: Re: Upside Down Fu character
From: Michael Everson
To: unicode Unicode Discussion
From: Michael Everson
To: unicode Unicode Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, 3 January 2012, 18:46
Subject: Re: Upside Down Fu character
On 3 Jan 2012, at 18:28, Rick McGowan wrote:
> I would say to use higher level mark-up or images for this. I don't see any
> reas
the SIL PUA
(http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=PUA_home) is
slowly being absorbed into TUS
one character yet to be added is the U+F1BC MODIFIER LETTER SMALL H WITH STROKE
the chart for Latin Extended-D
(http://www.unicode.org/Public/6.1.0/charts/blocks/UA720.pdf) has
interesting
after banging on about the need to adhere to Unicode annexes, &c, and not
withstanding the comment that "the characters in this block are intended for
symbols used in mathematical notation", Christiansen uses characters from the
Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols block for visual ef
FWIW, if I were you, I'd forget all about CLDR
for one thing, there is no evidence that the originators of EPA ever
considered title-casing, and I think it would be wrong of us to
retro-fit mechanisms which were not part of the original
as Doug Ewell remarked in another thread, character names
20 matches
Mail list logo
