On 9/16/2013 2:18 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 9/16/2013 1:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
This has nothing to do with UTF-Anything or Normalization Form
Anything.
But all with keeping the discussion alive for any reason, however
insignificant :)
I guess it was too soon to try to
Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 9/16/2013 1:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with UTF-Anything or Normalization Form
>> Anything.
>
> But all with keeping the discussion alive for any reason, however
> insignificant :)
I guess it was too soon to try to come back to the list. 💢
--
Oh, for heaven's sake:
Code Point. (1) Any value in the Unicode codespace; that is, the range
of integers from 0 to 10₁₆. (See definition D10 in Section 3.4,
Characters and Encoding.) Not all code points are assigned to encoded
characters. See code point type. (2) A value, or position, for a
On 9/16/2013 1:41 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
This has nothing to do with UTF-Anything or Normalization Form Anything.
But all with keeping the discussion alive for any reason, however
insignificant :)
A./
Nah!!! STRICTLY NOBODY counts "scalar values".
Every one counts either
- (a) code units (most often 8-bit bytes, more rarely 16-bit bytes e.g.
with basic Javascript code), or
- (b) code points (independantly of code units used in the storage or
communication message format).
The application *may*
Doug wrote me:
You're not confusing "code point" with "code unit," are you?
Thanks for the note.
I think what you say is that I thought (or meant to write) "by first
representing the sequence of scalar values in an encoding form and then
counting [code points typecast from] code _units_". I t
Stephan Stiller wrote:
From the link it isn't entirely clear whether they
(a) count scalar values of NFC or
(b) count code points of NFC.
Are they not the same thing, except for surrogates?
Conceptually no, but numerically yes – you are right in that regard, and
I wasn't precise in my descripti
On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 09:21:47PM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> If there's something to do now (given it is no longer used in CJK
> contexts), it's to strongly recommand that fonts map them to exactly the
> same glyph as the one obtained by aligning three periods in a raw without
> any additional
Addison Phillips wrote:
Not if the limit is counted in characters and not in bytes. Twitter,
for example, counts code points in the NFC representation of a tweet.
You're right. I take that back, about Twitter at least.
Stephan Stiller wrote:
From the link it isn't entirely clear whether the
From: Doug Ewell
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 14:04:05 -0600
> Andre Schappo wrote:
>> U+2026 is useful for microblogs when one is looking to save characters
> Not if the microblog is in UTF-8, as almost all are.
Why not just type:
. . .
(I suppose this fails too as now the ellipsis ca
Actually, that's my bad: I meant to type scalar value.
Stephan Stiller wrote:
On 9/15/2013 3:07 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Not if the limit is counted in characters and not in bytes. Twitter, for
example, counts code points in the NFC representation of a tweet.
"character", "code point" – the
On 9/15/2013 3:07 PM, Phillips, Addison wrote:
Not if the limit is counted in characters and not in bytes. Twitter,
for example, counts code points in the NFC representation of a tweet.
"character", "code point" – these are confusing words :-)
From the link it isn't entirely clear whether they
Not if the limit is counted in characters and not in bytes. Twitter, for
example, counts code points in the NFC representation of a tweet.
Doug Ewell wrote:
Andre Schappo wrote:
> U+2026 is useful for microblogs when one is looking to save characters
Not if the microblog is in UTF-8, as almos
Andre Schappo wrote:
U+2026 is useful for microblogs when one is looking to save characters
Not if the microblog is in UTF-8, as almost all are.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
Do you mean saving two characters for posting to Tweeter ? Well may be, but
Tweeter clearly does not promote correct typography and not even correct
orthography. It is clearly not a good model for publishing.
But given the history of this character, I just wonder why it was not
mapped along with E
On 13 Sep 2013, at 20:02, Whistler, Ken wrote:
The *interesting* question, in my opinion, is why folks feel impelled to use
U+2026 to render a baseline ellipsis in Latin typography at all, rather than
just using U+002E ad libitum...
--Ken
U+2026 is useful for microblogs when one is looking to s
|On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Stephan Stiller
|wrote:
|
| Anecdotally people in Germany always tell me of a mythical
|> parenthesis-bracket-brace hierarchy { [ ( ) ] }, which I've never actually
|> encountered, and btw even the hierarchy [ ( ) ] isn't used by everyone.
The latter is doc
2013/9/13 Jukka K. Korpela
> 2013-09-13 22:02, Whistler, Ken wrote:
>
> The *interesting* question, in my opinion, is why folks feel impelled to
>> use
>> U+2026 to render a baseline ellipsis in Latin typography at all, rather
>> than
>> just using U+002E ad libitum...
>>
>
> In traditional typ
Exactly my thoughts:
In fonts commonly used for word processing and desktop publishing,
HORIZONTAL ELLIPSIS is usually not that well designed.
To me the dots appear too close in plenty of fonts.
But I think that the most common cause of the appearance of HORIZONTAL
ELLIPSIS is that Microsoft O
[PV:]
But then the existing ellipsis is not a good candidate because it has
the incorrect metrics where it should use the sinographic metrics.
[...] But the encoded ELLIPSIS does not fit correctly there.
But I think Chinese fonts take care of that.
Stephan
2013-09-13 22:02, Whistler, Ken wrote:
The *interesting* question, in my opinion, is why folks feel impelled to use
U+2026 to render a baseline ellipsis in Latin typography at all, rather than
just using U+002E ad libitum...
In traditional typography, an ellipsis usually has dots set apart mu
FWIW, I learned that hierarchy in sixth grade in the United States ...
over 65 years ago!
Peter
On 2013-09-13 13:42, Leo Broukhis wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Stephan Stiller
mailto:stephan.stil...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Anecdotally people in Germany always tell me of a mythic
I wrote:
> > As Philippe surmised, it is a compatibility character, originally included
> > in the Unicode 1.0 repertoire for cross-mapping to existing legacy
> > encodings:
> >
> > Code Page 932: 0x81 0x64
> > Code Page 949: 0xA1 0xA6
> >
Asmus responded:
> which just pushes that question forwa
Stephan Stiller noted:
> Maybe ... and the origin of the single-glyph ellipsis remains a mystery
> to me.
As Philippe surmised, it is a compatibility character, originally included
in the Unicode 1.0 repertoire for cross-mapping to existing legacy
encodings:
Code Page 932: 0x81 0x64
Code Page 94
On 9/13/2013 10:54 AM, Whistler, Ken wrote:
Stephan Stiller noted:
Maybe ... and the origin of the single-glyph ellipsis remains a mystery
to me.
As Philippe surmised, it is a compatibility character, originally included
in the Unicode 1.0 repertoire for cross-mapping to existing legacy
encodi
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Stephan Stiller
wrote:
Anecdotally people in Germany always tell me of a mythical
> parenthesis-bracket-brace hierarchy { [ ( ) ] }, which I've never actually
> encountered, and btw even the hierarchy [ ( ) ] isn't used by everyone.
>
>
I remember being told abou
My opinoon anyway is that the single character ellipsis only exists in the
UCS for backward compatibility with legacy encodings, that were initially
designed at time where they were used on terminals with limited graphic
capabilities and using only monoospaced fonts (including for tetext,
broadcast
Once you've increased the width of these interword spaces to
their maximum, all the characters (and these increased spaces)
should be justified using interletter spacing, and this extra
interletter spacing should be applied as well between the dots
of the el
2013/9/13 Stephan Stiller
>
> I dd not speak about inter-word spacing (this cont affect the rendering
>> of ellipsis itself) but about inter-letter spacing.
>>
> But the context I provided was that some people ask for ". . .[ .]", as
> ugly as it is :-) And, again, the precise "ideal" spacing is
Once you've increased the width of these interword spaces to their
maximum, all the characters (and these increased spaces) should be
justified using interletter spacing, and this extra interletter
spacing should be applied as well between the dots of the ellipsis
(showing that they are effecti
I dd not speak about inter-word spacing (this cont affect the
rendering of ellipsis itself) but about inter-letter spacing.
But the context I provided was that some people ask for ". . .[ .]", as
ugly as it is :-) And, again, the precise "ideal" spacing is a matter of
typographic design; you c
I've never seen it in math proper, is what I meant, but ...
The { [ ( ) ] } hierarchy is used in chemical nomenclature. It is
specified by IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry).
For example:
acetone
(/R/)-/O/-{2-[4-(α,α,α-trifluoro-/p/-tolyloxy)phenoxy]propionyl}oxime
...
2013/9/13 Stephan Stiller
> Hi Philippe,
>
> I don't think so : the ellipsis shoud still use the **same** extra inter
> letter spacing in justified lines as between letters within words to make
> the texxt more visually balanced.
>
> That providing a special font-dependent ellipsis glyph can/wil
Stephan Stiller wrote
> "braces" in English means just { }. Aside from the context of programming
> languages, braces are rare in English and German outside of math,
> to the point they'll look esoteric; in ordinary math you see them only for
> sets. Anecdotally people in Germany always tell me
Hi Philippe,
i.e. "(...)." at end of a truncated sentence or ". (...)" at
start of the next truncated sentence
Well, for citations in German I've generally seen "[...]", and for
English I've seen both "[...]" and "...", but not "(...)".
I included it them in my sentence ("paren
2013/9/13 Stephan Stiller
> Hi Philippe,
>
> [...] EXCEPT if theses dots are separated by extra spaces (larger than
> the extra inter-letter spacing on the same line, in case of justification
> in a column of text between fixed left and right margins)
>
> Now *that* is a *good* argument for pr
2013/9/13 Stephan Stiller
> Hi Philippe,
>
> If you want to use the ellipsis to mark something that has been truncated
> at end or start of a sentence, you normally put them betwen parentheses or
> braces, i.e. "(...)." at end of a truncated sentence or ". (...)" at start
> of the next truncated
Hi Philippe,
I disagree. For me your "spaced-out ellipsis" (". . .") is not an
ellipsis but are horizontal rulers (typically used in tables or input
forms) to facilitate the reading of tabular data.
I disagree with CMOS prescription in this case, just as you do, but the
prescription exists, na
2013/9/13 Stephan Stiller
> Again, I agree with what you write, but "…" has always been a bit of a
> mystery to me. I guess in the US-American (sub?)tradition where (some?)
> authorities ask for spaced-out
> . . .
> . . . .
> for ellipsis (with truly bizarre rules about which to choose in
The situation with {} is very similar to the situation with 0̸ for
the empty set and with \ for set subtraction. The Knuth's version of TeX
was designed for typesetting his books, and he (probably) did not
encounter situations where the meaning of these symbols is ambiguous.
When AM
The notation { } is quite correct. It just isn’t an atomic symbol for
the empty set but an expression consisting of the two characters “{”
and “}”, with a list (here, an empty list) of elements between them.
Reminds me of typographically composite stuff that has its own scalar
value ("
is practically impossible to produce a
text without misprints and/or minor problems, so the readers are quite
accustomed to making corrections — as far as the context allows
EXACTLY ONE correction.)
The situation with {} is very similar to the situation with 0̸ for
the empty set and with \ for set su
Regarding the empty set, the page
http://jeff560.tripod.com/set.html
rather convincingly attributes the symbol to André Weil, who says
that it was inspired by the Norwegian letter “Ø”.
Well, if one looks at earlier editions of the "Éléments", the symbol is
clearly not
Under Subject: Re: Why blackletter letters?
2013-09-12 20:20, Stephan Stiller wrote:
Talking about which ...
I confess I usually type a Danish Ø for convenience when I'm using
this, though for publication I would tend to substitute the proper ∅.
Whenever I saw the empty set symbol in pr
44 matches
Mail list logo
