On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> Standing its usage in text, couldn't it be considered as a punctuation mark?
No, I don't agree. More like a dingbat it looks to me, as far as you don't
get very philosophical.
> If this is the case, decomposing the mark into the Arabic letters it d
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> If this is the case, decomposing the mark into the Arabic letters it derives
> from would be as nonsensical as decomposing the question mark into the Latin
> letters it derives from ("Qo" for "quaestio").
I grant your "Q" but I doubt your "o". In all fonts known to m
John Cowan wrote:
> Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
>
> > If this is the case, decomposing the mark into the Arabic
> letters it derives
> > from would be as nonsensical as decomposing the question
> mark into the Latin
> > letters it derives from ("Qo" for "quaestio").
>
> I grant your "Q" but I do
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 03:37 +0430 2002-08-09, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> >By not providing a compatibility decomposition, we are
> >making the proposed character a healthy and normal
> >characters, [...]
>
> Doesn't matter where it's encoded. It is to be considered, if you
> will pardon t
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Martin Kochanski wrote:
> (1) Most software doesn't know what characters exist in any particular
> font that the user happens to have chosen, and it doesn't want to know.
> This is straightforward modular software design: some part of the
> *operating system* is responsible f
At 09:37 14/08/02 +0430, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>And it's also a reason for why a compatiblity decomposition is needed for
>it. When some piece of modern software doesn't find it in an older font,
>it can display it as its decomposition.
No, it can't.
(1) Most software doesn't know what char
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, James Kass wrote:
> A further note about the proposed "character", a user who is
> expecting to see this presentation form would probably be
> quite dismayed to find a missing glyph in its place. That may
> well be a frequent occurence, especially at first.
And it's also a
Roozbeh Pournader wrote in reply to Michael Everson,
> > Because it isn't a "logo", is used officially and obligatorily in
> > government documents in at least two countries, one of which does not
> > normally use the Arabic script, and it isn't reasonable to expect
> > people to type it in
>
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
> Doesn't matter where it's encoded. It is to be considered, if you
> will pardon the term, as a kind of dingbat, if I understand correctly.
I don't have anything against the term. Others may.
> Because it isn't a "logo", is used officially and oblig
At 03:37 +0430 2002-08-09, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>By not providing a compatibility decomposition, we are making the proposed
>character a healthy and normal characters, just like Arabic letters or
>symbols. It won't be a compatibility character like Chinese and Japanese
>ones, or other Arabic
At 08:50 -0700 2002-08-09, Doug Ewell wrote:
>In the Hebrew tradition, the name of God
>(Yahweh) is written specially to avoid the appearance of blasphemy.
>Mark Shoulson and Michael Everson co-wrote a draft proposal in 1998 to
>encode the "Tetragrammaton" in Unicode:
>
>http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/
At 13:58 -0700 2002-08-08, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
>Characters like the BISMALLAH ARRAHMAN ARRAHIM that meet obvious
>local requirements and make implementation sense are acceptable
>to the UTC.
Note that the Maldivians asked for the same "entity" for the same
reasons the Pakistanis did but it
At 02:54 -0700 2002-08-09, Andrew C. West wrote:
>Not so outlandish as it may first appear. When Egyptian hieroglyphs
>get encoded in Unicode, I would not be surprised to see special
>characters for the cartouched names of pharaohs.
Not a chance. No current implementation does this, and no one
At 21:34 -0700 2002-08-09, Doug Ewell wrote:
>(I just love that name, don't you? I could say it all day, if only I
>knew how. !Xóõ !Xóõ !Xóõ.)
Just like it's spelled, of course.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
Hallo Doug,
DE> (I just love that name, don't you? I could say it all day, if only I
DE> knew how. !Xóõ !Xóõ !Xóõ.)
Find enlightenment in Ladefoged, P., and Maddiesson, I., "The Sounds
of the World's Languages", Cambridge (MA): Blackwell 1996, p. 246-280
(the chapter on clicks).
Philipp
Roozbeh wrote:
>> (I just love that name, don't you? I could say it all day, if only I
>> knew how. !Xóõ !Xóõ !Xóõ.)
>
> which makes one wonder if the above comment is a quote or yours.
Sorry for the confusion. The "love that name" comment was mine.
-Doug
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Was there anything decided about using variant selectors for selecting
> exact shapes?
StandardizedVariants.html doesn't list anything for vulgar fractions. I
assume they decided the distinction wasn't worth making.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
> StandardizedVariants.html doesn't list anything for vulgar fractions. I
> assume they decided the distinction wasn't worth making.
Maybe it's reserved for 4.0? Unfortunately there seems that variants are
not listed in the pipeline, or it is so possibly be
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Re: Mixed up priorities
> From: Michael Everson
> Date: Sun Oct 24 1999 - 06:34:24 EDT
> [...]
>
> (I just love that name, don't you? I could say it all day, if only I
> knew how. !Xóõ !Xóõ !Xóõ.)
>
> -Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
which ma
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
> The horizontal-bar fractions can be mapped to the existing Unicode
> fractions, and the only thing lost in round-tripping is the exact glyph
> shape.
Was there anything decided about using variant selectors for selecting
exact shapes?
roozbeh
On Friday, August 02, 2002 6:04 pm, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>>> ... and some extreme case
>>> orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
>>
>> Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
>
> If I recall correctly, that one was a technical orthography
> of Nama -- but I can't tr
Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> What about round-trip compatibility?
UTC and WG2 apparently decided that some degree of compatibility with
this relatively new (1997) DPRK standard could be sacrificed. The
horizontal-bar fractions can be mapped to the existing Unicode
fractions, and the only thing l
DE> The Egyptian pharaohs and Chinese emperors were generally viewed as gods
DE> or demigods.
Oh, aren't North Korean political leaders? ;-)
DE> For the North Koreans to encode special "emphasized" Hangul characters
DE> for the names of their two "Great Leaders," Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il,
DE>
Andrew C. West wrote:
>> And if you think that's bad, you should have seen the ones that got
>> rejected -- special "emphasized" Hangul for writing the names of
>> North Korean dictators
>
> Not so outlandish as it may first appear. When Egyptian hieroglyphs
> get encoded in Unicode, I would not
On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 03:54 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
> And in China, historically the personal names of emperors (for
> emperors read dictators) have been
> tabooed
An Ideographic Taboo Variation Indicator has been approved by the UTC
for addition to the standard to handle precisely
On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 06:45 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
> The secondary examples (where the taboo-form is used as a phonetic
> component in a more
> complex character) could be currently coded using Ideographic
> Description Characters - e.g. U+2E98, U+22606> and . Is there still a need
"James Kass" wrote:
>
> Proposal to Add IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR
> to ISO/IEC 10646:
> http://mail.alumni.princeton.edu//jump/http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2475.pdf";>http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2475.pdf
Thanks for the reference.
There seem to be a couple of p
Andrew C. West wrote of pharoahs and taboos.
Egyptian Hieroglyphic Encoding Proposal:
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n1637/n1637.htm
Proposal to Add IDEOGRAPHIC TABOO VARIATION INDICATOR
to ISO/IEC 10646:
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n2475.pdf
Best regards,
James Kass.
Doug Ewell wrote:
> And if you think that's bad, you should have seen the ones that got rejected --
> special "emphasized" Hangul for writing the names of North Korean dictators
Not so outlandish as it may first appear. When Egyptian hieroglyphs get encoded in
Unicode, I would
not be surprised
Roozbeh asked:
> > Expecting the compatibility decompositions to serve this purpose
> > effectively is overvaluing what they can actually do.
>
> I would love to hear your opinion about what compatibility decompositions
> *are* for, then. I feel a little confused here.
They are helpful annotati
On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> The discussion was more on grounds of "look at all the pretty things the
> Arabs have got". :-(
Weird, were they involved with Persian typography? Few Persian
typographers call those things pretty. They consider ligatures disruptive
when one's readi
Ken,
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Expecting the compatibility decompositions to serve this purpose
> effectively is overvaluing what they can actually do.
I would love to hear your opinion about what compatibility decompositions
*are* for, then. I feel a little confused here.
Hello Roozbeh,
RP> The point is that Persian typography is almost completely ligatureless,
RP> except for the famous Lam-Alef one. Did your clients really ask for
RP> ligatures containing Persian letters?
I got the impression that it's rather a matter of principle. I'm in a
university environme
Hello Roozbeh,
>> or who complained to me about how insufficient Unicode was in not
>> including support for the four Persian letters in these glyph blocks
RP> Huh? Are you talking about the same Persian language I speak?
I think so. Is there more than one? (Not counting Dari & Tajik)
RP> Not
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> RP> Huh? Are you talking about the same Persian language I speak?
>
> I think so. Is there more than one? (Not counting Dari & Tajik)
No, there isn't, as far as I know.
> Yep... I was sort of expressing myself in an unclear fashion. The
> presenta
Roozbeh,
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> > That is true, but for those ligatures as well, the compatibility
> > decomposition is not actually useful in implementation.
>
> They help implementations in sorting, searching, comparing,
Compatibility decompositions are part of t
Erratum:
>One could say that the bismillah is more than the some of its parts.
... sum of its parts.
JH
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Language must belong to the Other -- to my linguistic community
as a whole -- before it can belong to me, so t
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> That is true, but for those ligatures as well, the compatibility
> decomposition is not actually useful in implementation.
They help implementations in sorting, searching, comparing, providing
backup rendering when they lack the glyph, reading a tex
At 11:38 AM 08-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>That is true, but for those ligatures as well, the compatibility
>decomposition is not actually useful in implementation. No one
>expects people to actually type out the decomposition in order to
>get the symbol as a "character". And as Michael Evers
On Thu, 8 Aug 2002, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
> or who complained to me about how insufficient Unicode was in not
> including support for the four Persian letters in these glyph blocks
Huh? Are you talking about the same Persian language I speak? Not only the
presentation forms for Peh, Tcheh, Je
Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> Since there are 676 possible digraph combinations, I endeavoured to
> come up with a simpler approach to marking the digraphs as a single
> character than simply creating a codepoint for each one. I have two
> ideas so far:-
> ...
> * Come up with a digraph combinging cha
William,
fyi, definitions can be found in the Unicode glossary
http://www.unicode.org/glossary
(They are helpful and easy to access although I often find them weak or
wanting.)
digraph http://www.unicode.org/glossary/#digraph
Digraph. A pair of signs or symbols (two graphs), which together
repr
On 08/03/2002 03:32:54 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>Actually, I have suggested some code points in relation to this in the
>following document.
William, it seems like every time you contribute to a thread, you are suggesting new code points. There are no new code points needed for digraphs.
William Overington wrote,
> Is a digraph exactly the same as a ligature, or is there some difference
> please?
A digraph is a string of letters consisting of two letters. A
ligature is a special presentation form of a string where the
letters connect in some fashion.
Some digraphs have been
Sean Palmer raises some interesting matters.
>I came across the following point in the Unicode FAQ that explains why the
>Unicode standard does not contain any characters for digraphs:-
>
>http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/ligature_digraph.html#3
>
Is a digraph exactly the same as a ligature, o
On 08/02/2002 03:17:56 PM "Sean B. Palmer" wrote:
>If anyone has any comments on this, or any references to previous
>discussions, they would be gladly recieved.
Any discussion of encoding Latin digraphs as units makes an unvalidated assumption that there is some benefit to be gained. We've gone
At 06:04 PM 8/2/02 -0700, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>In the meantime, for a sampler of some of the wild multigraphs
>used in various orthographies for Khoi and San languages, try
>
>http://www.african.gu.se/khsnms.html
>
>Examples: "'//Ng" <-- there's a pentagraph for you.
>
>"//Kx'", "//Kh'" and s
> At 04:48 PM 02-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>
> >... and some extreme case
> >orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
>
> Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
If I recall correctly, that one was a technical orthography
of Nama -- but I can't track down an online
At 04:48 PM 02-08-02, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>... and some extreme case
>orthographies are known that employ up to *hepta*graphs!
Ooo, I want one! Do you have any examples, Ken?
John Hudson
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Language must belong to
At 04:19 PM 02-08-02, David Starner wrote:
>Stop being so ethnocentric. The extended Latin alphabet alone is much
>larger than 26 characters, and that ignores all the Cyrillic languages,
>some of which were probably written with digraphs.
And trigraphs and, in at least one Cyrillic transcription
> >Since there are 676 possible digraph combinations,
>
> Stop being so ethnocentric. The extended Latin alphabet alone is much
> larger than 26 characters, and that ignores all the Cyrillic languages,
> some of which were probably written with digraphs.
And the problem doesn't stop with digraph
At 09:17 PM 8/2/02 +0100, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>I find the comments therein rather perplexing, especially seeing as how if
>the digraphic characters were in fact denoted by a singular new glyph, then
>they would certainly have been included.
Then it would be a new character. As it is, it's only
Hi all,
I came across the following point in the Unicode FAQ that explains why the
Unicode standard does not contain any characters for digraphs:-
http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/ligature_digraph.html#3
I find the comments therein rather perplexing, especially seeing as how if
the digraphic
53 matches
Mail list logo
