On Roman number signs
Jill Ramonski scripsit;
> I confess, I hadn't read ch14.pdf, and I probably should have done. My
> fault. But I still believe that there should be something in the
> machine-readable code charts themselves that says, of the Roman numerals,
> "Don't use these characters - us
> "John" == John Jenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> (Apple's LastResort font [contains every Unicode character],
John> of course, but by virtually of rampant reuse of glyphs.)
Does this Generate glyphs like the following ascii- & utf8-art?
+--+┌──┐
|AB|
On 2003 ¦~ 8 ¤ë 19 ¤é ¬P´Á¤G, at 9:18 AM, Jim Allan wrote (rhetorically):
Must every font contain every Unicode character?
FWIW, it's no longer possible for a TrueType/OpenType font to contain
every Unicode character with a distinct glyph. (Apple's LastResort
font does it, of course, but by v
Jill Ramonsky posted on the minus sign:
Yeah, I know. But like I said, who uses this?
Books are normally produced today using computer typesetting. Look in
any mathematics text or any well printed book for minus signs. Hyphens
and minus signs are distinct (except when showing computer programmi
Compatibility characters:
The recommendations for compatibility characters are necessarily vague,
since their use in legacy data (and legacy environments) is strongly
dependent on what is (or was) customary in a given environment.
If a process merely warehouses text data (or parses only a very
: Re: Clones (was RE: Hexadecimal)
On 19/08/2003 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I disagree.
>
>A post-Windows, post-Linux, Operating System for the 21st century intended
>for global use, should ideally support the whole of Unicode.
>
>There are, in fact, people working on su
On 19/08/2003 01:58, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree.
A post-Windows, post-Linux, Operating System for the 21st century intended
for global use, should ideally support the whole of Unicode.
There are, in fact, people working on such projects.
Jill
Well, whatever might be new about this OS,
, August 18, 2003 11:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clones (was RE: Hexadecimal)
No system has to support all of Unicode.
racter is FOR, in sufficient detail that the answer to questions like the
above becomes obvious.
Jill
-Original Message-
From: John Cowan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 4:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Clones (was RE: Hexadecimal)
Peter Kirk posted:
Well, that's what was puzzling me about the recommendations not to use
these characters. In my opinion, there needs to be a clear statement
with each character definition (not somewhere in the text not linked to
it) of its status in such respects. Is it for compatibility use onl
Someone suggested...
> It would be much simpler if each such character were clearly labelled in
> the code charts etc. DO NOT USE!, and with its glyph presented on a grey
> background or in some other way to indicate its special status.
Well, sure, I agree that it might be nice to somewhere doc
On 18/08/2003 11:32, Jim Allan wrote:
Peter Kirk posted:
It would be much simpler if each such character were clearly labelled in
the code charts etc. DO NOT USE!, and with its glyph presented on a grey
background or in some other way to indicate its special status.
I don't think people should
Peter Kirk posted:
It would be much simpler if each such character were clearly labelled in
the code charts etc. DO NOT USE!, and with its glyph presented on a grey
background or in some other way to indicate its special status.
I don't think people should be told so directly to NOT use an offici
On 18/08/2003 09:06, Jim Allan wrote:
Jill Ramonsky posted:
I would really like it if these, and
every single other character which is "only there for reasons of
round trip
compatibility" with something else, were explicity marked in the
machine-readable charts with something meaning "Don't intr
Jill Ramonsky posted:
I would really like it if these, and
every single other character which is "only there for reasons of round trip
compatibility" with something else, were explicity marked in the
machine-readable charts with something meaning "Don't introduce this
character, at all, ever. Don'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
> "Don't use these characters - use the the normal Latin letters instead".
That's essentially the implication of being a compatibility character.
> Secondly, I believe that the code charts SHOULD provide machine-readable
> information about the hexadecimal values of
All of this makes sense to me, apart from one or two tiny niggling points...
I confess, I hadn't read ch14.pdf, and I probably should have done. My
fault. But I still believe that there should be something in the
machine-readable code charts themselves that says, of the Roman numerals,
"Don't use
17 matches
Mail list logo
