Jill Ramonsky wrote:
> If we had an infinite codespace, we wouldn't need a private use area.
> If a private citizen said "I want some codepoints for some symbols I
> just invented for my pet fish" then there would be no problem saying
> "Sure thing, dude, you can have all the codepoints between
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick McGowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 7:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
>
>
> Before everyone goes jumping off the deep end wi
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> or the extra
> PUAs needed by Microsoft in its OpenType fonts for Office...)
(sigh)
OpenType fonts are not for only Office. PUAs are not needed or used by
Microsoft for OpenType imple
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
> Behalf Of Addison Phillips [wM]
> When all of the planes less than 16 are full and the possibility of
> exhausting code points become actually apparent (but not before), the
UTC
> should reserve a range of code p
TED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 4:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
>
>
> From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Here's a proposed solution then.
On 16/10/2003 15:20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
the famous
Apple logo character in the MacRoman encoding, ...
Another issue which goes to the core of Unicode? :-)
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
http://www.qaya.org/
At 00:20 +0200 2003-10-17, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Which could then be reserved for "hyper-surrogates",
We don't need them.
referencing codepoints out of the 17 first planes, and assigned in a open
registry for interchangeable semi-private uses,
There is no such thing.
such as corporate logographs
From: "Addison Phillips [wM]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Here's a proposed solution then. I hereby submit it for use on that
> incredibly distant day in which our oracle fails and a new 1 million code
> point script is added to Unicode (e.g. never).
>
> When all of the planes less than 16 are full and
At 18:26 -0400 2003-10-16, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
(We're now *trying* to do more data interchange in Klingon
characters, the lack of which is what held Klingon back from
encoding in the first place... but we *can't* because we're not
encoded! What a catch-22!)
But we determined that the users
On 16/10/2003 13:12, John Cowan wrote:
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
PS: private answer to Jill: make sure that your characters are always
represented internally by infinite precision integers.
Actually, the intractability of the transfinite ordinals shows us that
there can be no such thing.
Philippe Verdy wrote:
Due to that, there's a big risk that PUAs start being permanently assigned
as part of a OS core charset, and that data created on distinct systems
become mutually incompatible as they are using colliding subsets of PUAs
(this is already the case in core fonts and script proce
At 09:59 PM 10/16/03 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
We're not discussing about addition of characters standardized by joint
efforts
of Unicode's UTC and ISO's WG2, and I'm not expecting a lot of changes in
this
area. But about a more general scheme in which the Unicode/ISO10646 would
become a part o
At 10:16 PM 10/16/03 +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Standards should always be designed with the idea of integrating well
with other standards, without introducing contradictory objectives.
This is what Americans call "motherhood and apple pie" - feel godd statements
that are lofty but do nothing to
At 22:16 +0200 2003-10-16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I'm not quoting exactly their sentences. This is just the general idea
behind ISO which is to produce a coherent set of standards that should
be accepted and followed by governments, industries and people
developping interchangeable products or serv
At 11:50 -0700 2003-10-16, Rick McGowan wrote:
What you see on the roadmap is what we, in over 12 years of
searching, have been able to find. I challenge anyone to come up
with enough legitimate characters (approximately a million of them)
that aren't on the roadmap to fill the 17 planes.
Tha
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> PS: private answer to Jill: make sure that your characters are always
> represented internally by infinite precision integers.
Actually, the intractability of the transfinite ordinals shows us that
there can be no such thing. Ordinary "infinite precision" integers
beg
r 16, 2003 12:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
>
>
> Before everyone goes jumping off the deep end with wanting to
> reserve more
> space on the BMP for hyper extended surrogates or whatever, can someone
> plea
- Original Message -
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: Re: Beyond 17 planes, was: Java char and Unicode 3.0+
> Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> > It's true that there is
From: "Asmus Freytag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:03 AM 10/16/03 -0700, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >Or perhaps a way can be found to graciously retire UTF-16 in some distant
> >future version of Unicode. That is likely to become viable long before
the
> >extra planes are needed.
>
> This discussion is a
Michael wrote...
> Someone calculated that at the present rate of character encoding
> (1000 a year) it would take something like 700 years to fill the
> whole range of characters
I think Ken and I have both done similar calculations, which are a matter
of record in the mail list archives,
Someone calculated that at the present rate of character encoding
(1000 a year) it would take something like 700 years to fill the
whole range of characters
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> It's true that there is no plan in Unicode to encode something
> else than plain text for existing or future actual scripts. But
> ISO10646 objectives are to also to offer support and integrate
> almost all other related ISO specifications that may need a
> unified codepoin
Before everyone goes jumping off the deep end with wanting to reserve more
space on the BMP for hyper extended surrogates or whatever, can someone
please come up with more than 1 million things that need to be encoded?
Our best estimate, for all of human history, comes in around 250,000. Even
At 08:03 AM 10/16/03 -0700, Peter Kirk wrote:
Or perhaps a way can be found to graciously retire UTF-16 in some distant
future version of Unicode. That is likely to become viable long before the
extra planes are needed.
This discussion is a pure numbers game. Since no-one can define a hard
numbe
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 16/10/2003 06:33, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> >>>
> >>>I am also doubting, but I would not bet on it. After all, when Unicode
> >>>started, a single plane was considered waay mo
On 16/10/2003 06:33, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
I am also doubting, but I would not bet on it. After all, when Unicode
started, a single plane was considered waay more than sufficient
too.
I not only would bet on it
26 matches
Mail list logo
