Philippe Verdy wrote:
> And probably some remaining devices using 5-bit or 6-bit encodings...
> Unicode does not specify encodings out of the UTF-* series.
SCSU:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr6/
BOCU-1:
(just a Technical Note, may not count as a Unicode "specification")
http://www.unicode.or
bject: Re: Hexadecimal never again
> Ben Dougall wrote about what is used for hex characters:
>
> > which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
> > sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
> > 0x46 and 0x61 - 0x66.
>
From: "Rick McGowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Curtis Clark,
>
> > Caviar, 10kg, €FEED
>
> Heh, heh... Don't you mean:
>
> Caviar, Akg, €FEED
And why not this menu:
€BEEFFACE VINAIGRETTE
WINE OF BOURGOGNE €A0C (3/4L)
Curtis Clark,
> Caviar, 10kg, €FEED
Heh, heh... Don't you mean:
Caviar, Akg, €FEED
;-)
Rick
on 2003-08-20 11:03 Rick McGowan wrote:
Hex doesn't have an independent
existence out in non-computing culture for, e.g., signs in the market place
or monetary values.
Caviar, 10kg, €FEED
--
Curtis Clark http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
Mockingbird Font Works
Ben Dougall wrote about what is used for hex characters:
which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
0x46 and 0x61 - 0x66.
Not in EBCDIC (and other older character sets) they aren't. There are a
lot of
On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 07:03 pm, Rick McGowan wrote:
What do hackers with non
Latin-based languages use for hex anyway?
They use 0-9, A-F, and a-f.
which'll be whatever characters happen to be used to represent those
sections of the character set on their machines: 0x30 - 0x39, 0x41 -
> What do hackers with non
> Latin-based languages use for hex anyway?
They use 0-9, A-F, and a-f.
Hex is used mostly by programmers, mostly for computing, and mostly in
programming languages that have the digits and Latin letters built-in, and
that's what compilers expect to see. Hex doesn't
> Jon I was mostly being tongue in cheek and contrasting that relative to
> needing new hex digits, a base change was more likely. However, I wasn't
> saying that a base change is likely.
And I was being tongue in cheek (and ignorant of Ethiopian script) in
suggesting the use of base 256. However
Jon Hanna wrote:
>
> > From a practical standpoint, I think it is more likely that the base will
> > change rather than the hex characters.
> > After all, digits have been constant for a long time, but the base has
> > changed. Initially it was binary, then it was octal, and now hex
> > arithmet
On 20/08/2003 06:45, Jon Hanna wrote:
... The next base to have that quality is base 256,
which would require us to ransack a few different alphabets and then maybe
create a few symbols in order for us to represent it.
No, we could just use Ethiopic. Plenty of characters there. We could
even p
> From a practical standpoint, I think it is more likely that the base will
> change rather than the hex characters.
> After all, digits have been constant for a long time, but the base has
> changed. Initially it was binary, then it was octal, and now hex
> arithmetic is
> common.
No, first it wa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Thanks, but not good enough.
>
> What guarantee do I have that other Unicode characters will not be added in
> the future which have the property "Hex_Digit"?
One solution is to join the consortium and be able to vote against such a
thing happening!
If it is a conce
13 matches
Mail list logo
