Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
As David pointed out, currency symbols really aren’t an analogy to
anything else. They are never built from combining characters, and
are never decomposable to them. This has nothing really to do with
TTS or pronunciation. One person in the Ubuntu
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 4:32:12 AM Philippe Verdy wrote:
But is your subnet really declared with a stable IP range within a
*secured* whois or DNS database? Contact your ISP to get a stable IP range
or have it declared instead of being within the same shared block (may be
they will want you
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
On Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:27:56 PM David Starner wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Does Unicode give any relevance to non-visual rendering, or do TTS
just need to settle for
On Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:50:13 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
And in the other example, one is B with double lines vs bitcoins.
As David pointed out, currency symbols really aren’t an analogy to
anything else. They are never built from combining characters, and are
never decomposable to them.
Luke Dashjr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
That is, 100 decimal is one hundred with a binary value of 110 0100.
But the same 100 in tonal would be san with a binary value of
1 .
100 with the meaning of one hundred is spoken as ciento in
Spanish, ekatón in Greek, sto in Russian, etc.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Does Unicode give any relevance to non-visual rendering, or do TTS
just need to settle for environmental hints (eg, the user explicitly telling
it tonal numbers are in use)?
How do you tell a chemist from the general populace?
On Saturday, March 14, 2015 9:27:56 PM David Starner wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
Does Unicode give any relevance to non-visual rendering, or do TTS
just need to settle for environmental hints (eg, the user explicitly
telling it tonal numbers
2015-03-14 17:17 GMT+01:00 Luke Dashjr l...@dashjr.org:
P.S. Can someone disable (or soften) Spamhaus RBL for the Unicode mailing
list
(and/or private email servers for some of those CC'd)? Spamhaus has
recently
been abusing their RBL for putting political pressure on entire ISPs
including
On Friday, August 06, 2010 9:02:39 AM Andrew West wrote:
Looking at the examples shown on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom, it seems to me that
0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted
or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that
On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the
perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the
invented digits for 9 and 11 through 15, and then in the middle there's this
Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev Andrew West andrewcw...@gmail.com:
On 6 August 2010 05:14, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
What makes this troublesome for me is that, on the one hand, there are the
perfectly ordinary-looking 0 through 8, and on the other hand there are the
invented digits
Looking at the examples shown on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom, it seems to me that
0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15 are inverted
or inverted+modified forms of the digits '7' through '1', so that
there is some sort of imperfect bilateral symmetry on the
On 6 August 2010 11:03, Kent Karlsson kent.karlsso...@telia.com wrote:
Den 2010-08-06 11.02, skrev Andrew West andrewcw...@gmail.com:
Looking at the examples shown on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Nystrom, it seems to me that
0-8 are ordinary digits, and the symbols for 9 through 15
Kent Karlsson kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com wrote:
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though 9
is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
I suggested
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
/kent k
Den 2010-08-02 19.54, skrev Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org:
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 04:06:10 pm Kent Karlsson wrote:
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
Well, I
Kent Karlsson kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com wrote:
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage, not different characters from
the ordinary 0-9.
I suggested
Den 2010-08-05 00.20, skrev Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org:
Kent Karlsson kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com wrote:
I see absolutely no point in reencoding the digits 0-9 even though
9 is (strangely) used to denote the value that is usually denoted 10.
That is just a (very strange) usage,
I've copied an updated draft proposal to:
http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/chores/tonal.html
I believe I have addressed all of the suggestions raised to my earlier draft.
Please let me know what you all think.
Thanks,
Luke
Luke-Jr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
I've copied an updated draft proposal to:
http://luke.dashjr.org/tmp/chores/tonal.html
I believe I have addressed all of the suggestions raised to my earlier draft.
Please let me know what you all think.
If it were up to me, which it is not, I
Since no-one else seems to have responded to Luke...
Den 2010-07-30 22.09, skrev Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org:
This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these
existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly noticable
ways.
That is most certainly a font
Luke-Jr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
This isn't about them not looking *exactly* the same, it's about these
existing modifiers being inconsistent with each other in visibly
noticable ways. Nor are these characters mere styling that should
require rich-text (including changing fonts) to
Den 2010-07-26 02.48, skrev Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org:
superscript letters S, T, b, m, r, s, and t. [...]
...
Imagine my surprise, then, when I found that these superscripts are not
formally encoded (only i and n are). [...]
There are more superscripted letters than i and n that are
Luke-Jr luke at dashjr dot org wrote:
These are not really combining marks; they appear to be nothing more
than ordinary Latin superscript letters. As such, I would suggest
not only that the multiplication and division superscripts be
unified with each other, but that they be unified with
On Monday, July 26, 2010 09:55:30 am Doug Ewell wrote:
A superscript letter, representing the multiplier or divisor, before or
after the base unit would be plain text.
In my experimenting with fonts, I also noticed that the Unicode superscripts
mentioned by Kent have a lower floor from that
I would appreciate any constructive input on this future proposal (for CSUR,
not Unicode). Doug, do you mind if Tonal is positioned after your Ewellic
script (maybe you plan to extend it?) from U+E6D0 to U+E6FF?
Specific questions I have:
- Am I using COMBINING correctly? Is it sufficient for
I don't know if this belongs on the public Unicode list or not. I
assume anyone who feels it should not will not keep their feelings
secret for long.
Luke-Jr wrote:
I would appreciate any constructive input on this future proposal (for
CSUR, not Unicode). Doug, do you mind if Tonal is
27 matches
Mail list logo
