On 7/13/2011 3:49 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
As Asmus was at pains to point out, the character
encoders are essentially engaged in an operational discovery process
regarding
"what characters there are". That in turn leads to a definition by
enumeration: What
characters are consists of the list of
quot;Abstract character" is deliberately aligned with the longstanding SC2
normative definition
of "character". See 10646:
"character: member of a set of elements used for the organization,
control, or
representation of textual data"
That goes way back in the history of
2011/7/14 Ken Whistler :
> So a virus is to life, kind of like a control code is to a character. ;-)
Viri are undoubtly part of life because they have an identifiable and
autonomous genome, that is replicatable (even if it requires
cooperation in an infected cell).
But there are other kind of "su
On 7/13/2011 1:23 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I don’t see that biologists use the word “life” in any confusing
manner comparable to the Unicode confusion around “character.” “Life”
isn’t really a central concept in biology, and its use in biology
hardly differs much from everyday use. Defining
13.07.2011 21:15, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 7/13/2011 12:45 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
For one thing, defining “Unicode character” as a technical term and
using it consistently makes it possible to formulate clearly its
relation to “character” in the common meaning, thereby helping people
to unde
On 7/13/2011 12:45 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
For one thing, defining “Unicode character” as a technical term and
using it consistently makes it possible to formulate clearly its
relation to “character” in the common meaning, thereby helping people
to understand and use Unicode better.
Well,
12.07.2011 19:57, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Jukka,
reminding everyone of the definition of "technical term" as opposed to a
word in everyday language isn't helping address the underlying issue.
Everyone is familiar with this distinction.
I’m afraid the distinction is not widely enough known, and e
On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 Asmus Freytag wrote:
[...]
> Let's look at the putative benefit of a better definition. I think such
> a benefit has implicitly been claimed to exist, but I would ask for a
> demonstration in this case.
My positon formulated already in 2004:
http://bc.klf.uw.edu.pl/1
Jukka,
reminding everyone of the definition of "technical term" as opposed to a
word in everyday language isn't helping address the underlying issue.
Everyone is familiar with this distinction.
You note that there's a bit of a truism that underlies the definition of
cha
Michael Everson scripsit:
> At 09:46 +0200 2002-07-12, Otto Stolz wrote:
>
> >>And which character most resembles a Frenchman smoking his cigarette?
> >
> >Marco Cimarosti scrisse:
> >>I need to know, NOW! PLEASE!
> >
> >U+A232
> >
> >Egli ha il suo basco.
> >
> >Ciao,
> > Otto
>
> Too much t
At 09:46 +0200 2002-07-12, Otto Stolz wrote:
>>And which character most resembles a Frenchman smoking his cigarette?
>
>Marco Cimarosti scrisse:
>>I need to know, NOW! PLEASE!
>
>U+A232
>
>Egli ha il suo basco.
>
>Ciao,
> Otto
Too much time on your hands, Otto. :-)
--
Michael Everson *** Ever
Salve,
ho scritto:
> And which character most resembles a Frenchman smoking his cigarette?
Marco Cimarosti scrisse:
> I need to know, NOW! PLEASE!
U+A232
Egli ha il suo basco.
Ciao,
Otto
For this challenge:
> and Character Most Resembling a Frog (this is left as an exercise
> for the reader).
the following answers were proposed:
> Telugu U+0C0A
> Malayalam U+0D60!
My minimalist view:
- APL U+2365
Cheers,
OS
And which character most resembles a Frenchman smoking his cigarette?
Ken suggested:
> > and Character Most Resembling a Frog (this is left as an exercise
>for the reader).
>
>Telugu U+0C0A. But then, perhaps I had an unfair start. ;-)
Malayalam U+0D60!
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Martin Kochanski wrote:
> Next time you want to add some noise to the signal, have a poll for
> Funniest Cartoon Character (the runner at U+006F U+0F79), Warmest
> Character (togetherness U+1024), Most Needed Character (all computer
> users need U+02AD), and Character Most Resembling a Frog (thi
Martin Kochanski waxed exuberantly:
> I mention this because Unicode is the opposite of Procrustean.
> There is no finer antidote to gloom and cynicism than leafing through the Unicode
>Standard.
> In what other computing book could you find a phrase such as "In good Latvian
>typography"?
At 16:16 09/07/02 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>The *reason* why SC2 chose such a strange and seemingly open-ended
>definition was *not* to invite arbitrarily strange collections of
>data control elements to be encoded as characters, but rather an
>attempt, in a procrustean way, to get the def
One possibly interesting thing derived from "the threads from hell"
is the notion that the definition of character offered in the
various ISO JTC1/SC2 character encoding standards and TR's such
as the Character-Glyph Model (TR 15825) may be leading people astray
about what is
19 matches
Mail list logo
