On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> > Encoding the navy's flag alphabet or the Morse code would be exactly doing
> > this: assigning a code to a code which represents a letter.
>
> BTW, which characters should be used to encode the dot
At 20:18 +0430 2002-07-10, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
>> Encoding the navy's flag alphabet or the Morse code would be exactly doing
>> this: assigning a code to a code which represents a letter.
>
>BTW, which characters should be used to encode the do
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Encoding the navy's flag alphabet or the Morse code would be exactly doing
> this: assigning a code to a code which represents a letter.
BTW, which characters should be used to encode the dot and dash of Morse
in a typographically correct way?
rooz
On Saturday, July 6, 2002, at 03:42 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> We certainly agree that ligature use is a choice. I think we diverge
> on just what kind of choice is involved. You consider that ligature
> use is generally similar to bold or italic choices. I consider use of
> ligatures to be mo
At 08:06 PM 7/4/02 +0300, John Hudson wrote:
>>But ligature prohibition is a quite regular feature of German orthography
>>and any Unicode-based system that intends to provide generic support for
>>Latin script use, should be able to support it. As the prohibition is on
>>a case-by-case and wor
All your other good points noted:
At 02:57 PM 7/1/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>>Therefore, I would be much happier if the discussion of the 'standard'
>>case wasn't as anglo-centric and allowed more directly for the fact that
>>while fonts are in control of what ligatures are provided, lay
Kenneth Whistler wrote,
>
> > Another problem with TR28 is that its date is earlier than the date
> > on TR27. This suggests that TR27 is more current.
>
> I don't understand this claim.
>
After misreading the dates and writing the letter last Monday,
the internet connection was lost here f
John H. Jenkins wrote,
>
> There's another level of problem here, too. What if it isn't the author's
> intent, but an artifact of the particular typesetter?
When making an electronic reproduction of a specific text, a purist will
even duplicate any typographical errors found in the source.
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Asmus Freytag" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:08 PM
> Therefore, I would be much happier if the discussion of the
> 'standard' case wasn't as anglo-centric and allowed more directly
> for the fact that while fonts are in control of what l
At 19:53 +0300 2002-07-04, John Hudson wrote:
>Well, we need and have (in OpenType and AAT) a general purpose
>mechanism for typesetting texts employing ligatures as deemed fit by
>the professional typographer. The expectation of such a mechanism is
>that layout is applied to 'normal' text to
Daniel,
Is there a possibility to get an image what a red/black text looks
like? Or do you know a website that has an image and more information?
I like what you say at the end of your reply:
"My thought at the time was that it was just a natural adjustment that
one makes when going from ink an
John Hudson wrote:
> Documents using ZWJ can only be reliably rendered in particular
> fonts. For example, there is no reason why I should not include the
> sequence 'p ZWJ q' in a document, but unless I have a font containing
> a pq ligature I will not be able to render the sequence as intended
At 19:36 +0300 2002-07-04, John Hudson wrote:
>This is not Mac-only behaviour. So far I have yet to see a single
>OpenType font that uses the ZWJ to produce ligatures: they all
>proceed on the basis of applying a layout feature to regular text
>and affecting any sequence (e.g. f i) found in th
At 23:08 7/1/2002, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>Remember also that the simplistic model you present already breaks down
>for German, since the same character pair may or may not allow ligation
>depending on the content and meaning of the text - features that in the
>Unicode model are relegated to *pl
At 14:31 6/30/2002, James Kass wrote:
>Sounds like a giant step backwards from Unicode 3.0.1 (March 2002)
>http://www.unicode.org/unicode/standard/versions/Unicode3.0.1.html
>(see section "Controlling Ligatures")
>
>This page clearly states that ZWJ is proper for controlling the
>formation of La
At 18:20 6/29/2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Font designers regularly include a glyph for U+FB01 LATIN SMALL LIGATURE
>FI. It has always been known, and obvious, that a user could access
>this glyph directly by encoding U+FB01. With the advent of OpenType and
>a smart-enough rendering system, the use
At 05:41 6/27/2002, Wm Seán Glen wrote:
>Serifs came about through experimentation because carving in stone tended
>to crack unless it was done that way. Something about relieving the
>stresses in the material, I think.
I think this theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked. In the first
pla
David Possin wrote about chromatic font research.
Thank you for your interest.
You and some other readers might like to know that I published some Private
Use Area code point allocations which include some codes about these very
topics on 2 July 2002.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo
[*groans in the audience*]
I know, I know -- another contribution in the endless thread...
In re:
> The Respectfully Experiment
> I used it as evidence that ideas about what should not be
> included in Unicode can change over a period of time as new scientific
> evidence is discovered.
Havi
James Kass said:
> One problem with TR28 is that it is worded so that it appears to
> be "in addition" to earlier guidelines.
It is. The way this works is as follows: The original decision
about the ZWJ as request for ligation was documented in the
Unicode 3.0.1 update notice. That documentatio
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 02:08 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> At 11:34 AM 6/30/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>> Remember, Unicode is aiming at encoding *plain text*. For the bulk of
>> Latin-based languages, ligation control is simply not a matter of *plain
>> text*that is, the message is
At 11:34 AM 6/30/02 -0600, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>Remember, Unicode is aiming at encoding *plain text*. For the bulk of
>Latin-based languages, ligation control is simply not a matter of *plain
>text*that is, the message is still perfectly correct whether ligatures
>are on or off. There are
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 06:28 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> John H. Jenkins wrote:
>
>> That seems pretty clear to me. If you want a "ct" ligature in your
>> document because you think it "looks cool," then you use some
>> higher-level
>> protocol. The "looks cool" factor simply doesn't apply
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 05:31 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
>> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the
>> use of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ
>> technique for requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases
>> where the word i
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Suzanne, there's always a risk in making facecious comments
> that someone
> else will think you were serious and run with it.
I suppose you are going to say that Mark Davis' Mr. Potato head concept
was facetiou
> -Original Message-
> From: William Overington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> It seems to me that various people have contributed various
> good ideas as to
> how chromatic fonts could be produced and applied and the way
> that they
> could also contain items such as text to help a spee
[I see the encoding in my response got botched -- trying again.]
On 06/29/2002 08:34:44 PM "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
>> OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
>> itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial,
>> fact, to disprove the hypo
- Original Message -
From: "Stefan Persson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: (long) Re: Chromatic font research
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To
John H. Jenkins wrote:
> That seems pretty clear to me. If you want a "ct" ligature in your
> document because you think it "looks cool," then you use some higher-level
> protocol. The "looks cool" factor simply doesn't apply unless you know
> what font you're dealing with, because "ct" "looks
At 19:27 -0600 2002-06-29, John H. Jenkins wrote:
>I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages),
>the use of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ
>technique for requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to
>cases where the word is spelled incorrectl
On 06/29/2002 08:34:44 PM "John H. Jenkins" wrote:
>> OK, now I know the cha$B?(B of events that he was referr$B?(Bg to, and I'm
>def$B?(B
>> itely $B?(Bcl$B?(Bed to agree that it was complete co$B?(Bcidence. It is
>trivial, $B?(B
>> fact, to disprove the hypothesis that the "expe
William Overington wrote:
> >A decorated full stop should only appear within a piece of
> text marked up in some special way, e.g.:
> >
> >
> > This is my colorful text.
> >
> >
> >Therefore, color decoration is an issue only for *fonts*
> and/or *rich* text
> >systems, not for Unicode or *pla
On Sunday, June 30, 2002, at 05:31 AM, James Kass wrote:
> Can you please point me to a URL for Unicode 3.2 ligature control?
> This link (March 2002):
> http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr28/
> ...glosses over Latin ligatures suggesting that mark-up should be
> used in some cases and ZWJ
John H. Jenkins wrote,
> I must point out that for English (and a lot of other languages), the use
> of ZWJ to control ligation is considered improper. The ZWJ technique for
> requesting ligatures is intended to be limited to cases where the word is
> spelled incorrectly if *not* ligated (an
On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 03:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
>
>> OK, here are the details...
>
> OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
> itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial
Hmm. Disregard the last message from me. It isn't "ct" you're replacing.
See how annoying this all is? :-)
==
John H. Jenkins
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.mac.com/jenkins/
On Saturday, June 29, 2002, at 06:41 AM, James Kass wrote:
>
> This is a display issue rather than an encoding one. Unicode already
> provides for the correct encoding of the "ct" ligature with the
> ZWJ "character". Anyone wishing to correctly display the "ct"
> ligature might need to use a "
At 11:05 +0100 2002-06-29, William Overington wrote:
> >Therefore, color decoration is an issue only for *fonts* and/or *rich* text
> >systems, not for Unicode or *plain* text encoding.
>
>Well, why? Surely a decorated full stop could be in a plain text file being
>displayed in a program which
On 06/29/2002 04:47:17 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>This use of two routes to the same glyph in an OpenType font, one newer
>method together with one older method, seems to me to be a development,
>which James Kass thought of,
I can assure you, the idea did not originate with James Kass, and
On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
> OK, here are the details...
OK, now I know the cha$B?(B of events that he was referr$B?(Bg to, and I'm
def$B?(B
itely $B?(Bcl$B?(Bed to agree that it was a complete co$B?(Bcidence. It is
trivial, $B?(B
fact, to disprove the hypothes
On 06/28/2002 11:34:35 PM "Doug Ewell" wrote:
> OK, here are the details...
OK, now I know the cha of events that he was referrg to, and I'm def
itely cled to agree that it was complete cocidence. It is trivial,
fact, to disprove the hypothesis that the "experiment" supposedly proved.
William Overington wrote:
> This post makes the scientific
> situation quite clear
Several others have taken you to task for using English words with your
own private meaning, rather than a generally accepted meaning that can
be shared by all on the list. "Science" is one of those words. Scien
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Ewell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Overington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: (long) Re: Chromatic font research
>
William Overington
wrote:
> My point in citing The Respectfully Experiment in the recent post is
> that even though the reasons for not including any more ligatures in
> Unicode may have seemed totally reasonable at the time that that
> decision was made, the idea of James Kass that the glyphs f
Doug Ewell wrote,
> ...
> On 2002-05-31, I wrote a response which ended "Respectfully, Doug,"
> except that I used William's code point U+E707 in place of the letters
> "ct." My intent was that everyone on the Unicode list, including
> William, would see "Respefully," thus demonstrating the lac
> OK, here are the details. I'm reluctant to admit having been
>part of this "experiment," since it is now being presented as evidence
>to support the proliferation of private-use ligatures.
Actually, no. What I am seeking to use it as evidence for is the addition
of ligatures such as ct to the
Marco Cimarosti wrote as follows.
>William Overington wrote:
>> The occurrence of red words raises an interesting aspect of
>> this discussion in that a chromatic font would be needed
>> for the full stop character when decorated [...]
>
>A chromatic font in *conjunction* with markup, of course.
William Overington
wrote:
> For example, a recent experiment, documented
> in the archives of this list as The Respectfully Experiment, shows
> that there is now new evidence about the facts regarding the encoding
> of code points for ligatures...
and responded:
> Also, I don't recall posts f
> In the handwritten form, could you please say whether the adding of the red
> increases the width of the area needed to represent the character?
yes, absolutely, at least by the width of two dots.
> Also, when handwritten, does the scribe have a black pen in one hand and a
> red pen in the ot
Sampo Syreeni recently said:
> National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't.
> They stand for characters and I believe in some variations for entire
> well-known concepts. They are utilized in a way we would expect characters
> to be. I don't think the entire collectio
:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: UniCharacter (Re: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE:
> Chromatic font research))
>
>
> Tex wrote:
>
> > Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single
> character encoding,
> > UniCharacter!. Just
Stefan Persson wrote:
> I see. How do I propose millions of Unicode code points for
> inclusion in the stantard? ;-)
Just put them in the PUA, publish them, and wait: sooner or later, they'll
get promoted. ;-}
_ Marco
Good point about resolution.
I just realized an even bigger problem- steganography.
Embedding data in pictures. By changing the colors associated with a
character string, someone could spell out a completely different
message.
My "Hello world" could be changed to "Bite me". It might not even be
i
Doug Ewell wrote:
> I think the reason the Braille block is legitimate, and doesn't fall
> into the codes-for-codes trap you described, is that it is a flexible
> cipher rather than a fixed one. The same Braille symbol can stand for
> different letters depending on which script, or even which alp
> -Original Message-
> From: William Overington [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and
> the spirit of
> that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to
> denote all manner
> of items for human and computer communication.
G
Tex wrote:
> Lends a whole new meaning to unification! The single character encoding,
> UniCharacter!. Just color what you need.
Yeah! I like Tex's suggestion. It would eliminate all kinds of problems.
We wouldn't have to worry about encoding anything ever again, because users
would have al
ROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 1:58 PM
Subject: Codes for codes for codes for... (RE: Chromatic font research)
> Stefan Persson wrote:
> > From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Or 127 ASCII code points?
> > > Or ca. 9000 JIS code
Interestingly, once you have chromatic capabilities, you can encode
Braille as a single character with all dots, and apply coloring, to each
dot as needed, of the background color to eliminate dots, and foreground
color(s) to present them, to make all 256 combinations.
For that matter, you can en
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> And then there's Grade
> 2 Braille, which completely breaks the "simple cipher" model.
Not really: it is just enciphered code. Similarly, in the flag code
we can encode the phrase "I require a pilot" as G, or "I am in distress"
as "NC", and then encipher these (one-to-one
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> But such a thing actually has a precedent: the Braille block. But
> this had a (faint!) justification: those Braille patterns are not
> used to "encode Braille in Unicode", but rather to encode commands
> to be sent to Braille printers ("embossers", actually).
I think t
On 06/27/2002 01:57:01 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and the spirit
of
>that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to denote all manner
>of items for human and computer communication.
It may so seem to you, but this definit
I (Marco Cimarosti) wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
> > Marco said:
> >
> > >MC> However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
> > >MC> signs with the same design can mean different things if
> > painted in
> > >MC> different colors.
> >
> > Has it? Reference?
>
> The best I c
Stefan Persson wrote:
> From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Or 127 ASCII code points?
> > Or ca. 9000 JIS code points?
>
> They are already encoded, aren't they?
No, they aren't. Unicode encodes the same characters encoded by ASCII (at
the same code points) and the same characters en
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sure, pictures have colour, but pictures are not characters. Not even
>pictures of things that represent characters.
Depends on what you consider a character. In my inexpert opinion, any sign
which can be used in a way reminiscent of a character (i.e
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, John Cowan wrote:
>I looked at the image (less than ideal) at
>http://www.fortknoxxjewelry.com/store/myname/images/1177_l.jpg and fed
>it through the Gimp to strip out color information (specifically,
>Image/Colors/Desaturate followed by Image/Colors/Threshold, taking the
>12
At 07:57 +0100 2002-06-27, William Overington wrote:
>Michael Everson wrote as follows.
>
>>I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
>>model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
>>encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
>
Michael Everson wrote:
> Marco said:
>
> >MC> However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
> >MC> signs with the same design can mean different things if
> painted in
> >MC> different colors.
>
> Has it? Reference?
The best I can come up with from my private library is a sing
Daniel Yacob wrote as follows.
>
>In the ethiopic case it is 1362 (four dots like ::) interlaced with 5 red
dots
>in the sign of the cross that is the most common. This is 9 dots
altogether
>and at a glance looks like a colorful paragraph separator. Any punctuation
>or numeral may receive extra
Michael Everson wrote as follows.
>I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
>model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
>encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
>nothing to do with character encoding.
I have now had t
I, myself, am fascinated with this thread. I concur with
Peter. Our system of characters grew out of a di-chromatic world. Every phase in
the history of writing was affected by the tools at hand and was dated by
it. The word for scribe in hieroglyphics is a pen and (two colour) ink horn. We
Petra Sancta is a centuries old method for the representation of
heraldic/vexillological colours in binary black and white graphics.
Fx. red is vertical lines and blue is horizontal lines.
http://www.fotw.net/flags/heraldry.html#psm
-Herman
John Cowan skreiv:
>
> Sampo Syreeni scripsit:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Sampo Syreeni'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:39 PM
Subject:
On 06/26/2002 12:33:49 PM Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't.
>They stand for characters
But that doesn't mean that they themselves are characters. (I can just
imagine: characters for the signals representing the characters that
repres
Sampo Syreeni wrote:
> >As *characters*? Why?
>
> National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones
> perhaps aren't. They stand for characters [...]
So, why not encoding Morse codes? Or 127 ASCII code points? Or ca. 9000 JIS
code points? Or Braille dot patterns? (Ooops: delete the last
KW> As *characters*? Why?
Partly because they are used in contexts that might allow interpreting
them as characters (for example, used to signify languages, to
signify nationalities of delegates at conferences in conference
papers or to signify countries in soccer match statistics :-)).
I'm not
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:04:28PM -0400, Tex Texin wrote:
> Hi Keld,
>
> The livelink page had a link to proceed to public areas without going
> thru the password.
> That is how I got to the URL to the zip I mentioned below.
>
> So, we can access the zip on your site now without passwords? If s
Sampo Syreeni scripsit:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> >As *characters*? Why?
>
> Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't.
I looked at the image (less than ideal) at
http://www.fortknoxxjewelry.com/store/myname/images/1177_l.jpg
and fed it through the Gimp to strip out color
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>As *characters*? Why?
National flags are a far cry, true. Naval signalling ones perhaps aren't.
They stand for characters and I believe in some variations for entire
well-known concepts. They are utilized in a way we would expect characters
to be. I
Marco said:
>MC> However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
>MC> signs with the same design can mean different things if painted in
>MC> different colors.
Has it? Reference?
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
DANISH/SWEDISH/FINNISH; NORWEGIAN/ICELANDIC
Don
//
-Original Message-
From: Philipp Reichmuth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 8:55 AM
To: Marco Cimarosti
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Chromatic font research
The most obvious and simple example for glyph
Philipp said:
> The most obvious and simple example for glyph colours with semantic
> meaning that I can think of appears to be encoding characters for
> national flags (something that might even be considered proposable).
As *characters*? Why?
What is this bug that people catch, which induces
MC> However, the Aztec script uses color has a structural element:
MC> signs with the same design can mean different things if painted in
MC> different colors. So, if scholars *would* agree that Aztec is
MC> "writing", and if this script *would* get into Unicode, then color
MC> *should* have to be
Hi Keld,
The livelink page had a link to proceed to public areas without going
thru the password.
That is how I got to the URL to the zip I mentioned below.
So, we can access the zip on your site now without passwords? If so that
is good news. What is the URL?
It would be good if the Unicode si
The livelink was on the SC2/WG2 standards page, I now
added the .zip file. BTW, the livelink has a password protection.
Kind regards
keld
On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 09:35:14PM -0400, Tex Texin wrote:
> Since it is freely available, I wonder if permission to host and make
> the doc additionally avai
Peter Constable wrote:
> On 06/25/2002 11:17:52 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> >Use of the Private Use Area is never questionable, as far as
> it remains
> >*private*.
>
> I think this might be overreacting -- or at least it can seem
> to be so. [...]
Sorry if I made this impression: I actuall
"ISO/IEC TR 15285 - An operational model for characters and glyphs"
can be had for for 98 Swiss Francs from
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=27163
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
At 19:31 +0100 2002-06-25, Alistair Vining wrote:
>
> > ISO/IEC TR 15285 - An operational model for characters and glyphs
>
>To pre-empt any questions, Google says:
>http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/N1411.doc (working draft).
That is not the final document, is it? As such it should not b
On 06/25/2002 11:17:52 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Use of the Private Use Area is never questionable, as far as it remains
>*private*.
I think this might be overreacting -- or at least it can seem to be so. In
principle, there's nothing wrong with William creating a character to
experiment with,
Michael Everson wrote:
>
> An ISO Technical Report. The one in question is
>
> ISO/IEC TR 15285 - An operational model for characters and glyphs
To pre-empt any questions, Google says:
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/N1411.doc (working draft).
Al.
At 17:30 +0100 2002-06-25, William Overington wrote:
>Michael Everson wrote as follows.
>
>>I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
>>model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
>>encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
>
Michael Everson wrote as follows.
>I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
>model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
>encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
>nothing to do with character encoding.
What please is
> of the uses have a cultural and sometimes religious significance I felt that
> it would be respectful to those situations to use a purely ornamental
In the ethiopic case it is 1362 (four dots like ::) interlaced with 5 red dots
in the sign of the cross that is the most common. This is 9 dots a
William Overington wrote:
> I am not knowledgable about Ethiopic manuscripts or Arabic
> letters. As many of the uses have a cultural and sometimes
> religious significance I felt that it would be respectful to
> those situations to use a purely ornamental example for
> experiments, [...]
OK, l
William Overington
wrote:
> I am not knowledgable about Ethiopic manuscripts or Arabic letters.
> As many of the uses have a cultural and sometimes religious
> significance I felt that it would be respectful to those situations
> to use a purely ornamental example for experiments, one with which
Marco Cimarosti asked the following.
>How is an imaginary test case preferable to the real cases which were
>already proposed? These were:
>
>1) Black Ethiopic paragraph separator (U+1368) decorated with little red
>dots (suggested by Peter Constable).
>
>2) Arabic letters with black stems and re
> In Egyptian in the coffin texts passages are put in red, and this has
> a meaning, but it doesn't mean that we wouldn't do it with markup.
> Though if it WERE done by character encoding, it would be via BEGIN
> RUBRIC and END RUBRIC characters functioning like left and right
> parentheses le
At 12:22 +0200 2002-06-25, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>William Overington wrote:
>> Michael Everson raised a very interesting question, which
>> caused me to sit and think about it for quite a while.
>>
>> >At 08:16 +0100 2002-06-24, William Overington wrote:
>> >
>> >>U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) S
In Egyptian in the coffin texts passages are put in red, and this has
a meaning, but it doesn't mean that we wouldn't do it with markup.
Though if it WERE done by character encoding, it would be via BEGIN
RUBRIC and END RUBRIC characters functioning like left and right
parentheses leaving the
I think, William, you ought to read the TR on the character-glyph
model many times because it's clear that you want to use character
encoding, even private-use character encoding, for things that have
nothing to do with character encoding.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://w
William Overington wrote:
> Michael Everson raised a very interesting question, which
> caused me to sit and think about it for quite a while.
>
> >At 08:16 +0100 2002-06-24, William Overington wrote:
> >
> >>U+E7C2 HOLLY LEAF (GREEN) SURROUNDED BY FIVE BERRIES (RED)
> >
> >As a "character", wil
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
