At 11:54 AM 2/6/03 -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
My personal opinion? The whole debate about deprecation of
language tag characters is a frivolous distraction from
other technical matters of greater import, and things would
be just fine with the current state of the documentation.
But, if formal
John H. Jenkins wrote:
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
Ah, but it could be.
I feel that as the matter was put forward for Public Review then it is
reasonable for someone reading of that review to respond to the review on
the basis of what is stated as the issue in the Public Review item itself.
Kenneth Whistler now states an opinion as to what the review is about and
At 01:52 AM 2/7/03 -0800, Andrew C. West wrote:
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
Ah, but it could be.
Ah, but it wouldn't be Unicode.
A(h)./
Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
Unicode 4.0 will be quite specific: P14 tags are reserved for
use with particular protocols requiring their use is what the
text will say more or less.
I didn't know the question of what to do about Plane 14 language tags
had already been
James Kass wrote,
(What happens if someone discovers a 257th variant? Do they
get a prize? Or, would they be forever banished from polite
society?)
I was thinking about that. 256 variants of a single character may seem a tad
excessive, but there is a common Chinese decoartive motif
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
There are also a number of other auspicious characters, such as fu2
(U+798F)
good fortune that may be found written in a hundred variant forms as
a
decorative motif.
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
==
On Wed, 05 Feb 2003 02:00:30 -0800 (PST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If these alternate forms were needed to be displayed in a single
multi-lingual plain-text file, wouldn't we need some method of
tagging the runs of Latin text for their specific languages?
Is this not what the variation
On 02/04/2003 02:52:25 PM jameskass wrote:
If these alternate forms were needed to be displayed in a single
multi-lingual plain-text file, wouldn't we need some method of
tagging the runs of Latin text for their specific languages?
The plain-text file would be legible without that -- I don't
On 02/05/2003 04:05:44 AM Andrew C. West wrote:
If these alternate forms were needed to be displayed in a single
multi-lingual plain-text file, wouldn't we need some method of
tagging the runs of Latin text for their specific languages?
Is this not what the variation selectors are available
.
Andrew C. West wrote,
Is this not what the variation selectors are available for ?
And now that we soon to have 256 of them, perhaps Unicode ought not to be shy
about using them for characters other than mathematical symbols.
Yes, there seem to be additional variation selectors coming in
.
Peter Constable wrote,
The plain-text file would be legible without that -- I don't think this is
an argument in favour of plane 14 tag characters. Preserving
culturally-preferred appearance would certainly require markup of some
form, whether lang IDs or for font-face and perhaps
At 06:24 PM 2/5/03 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The advantages of using P14 tags (...equals lang IDs mark-up) is
that runs of text could be tagged *in a standard fashion* and
preserved in plain-text.
The minute you have scoped tagging, you are no longer using
plain text.
The P14 tags are no
On 02/05/2003 12:24:39 PM jameskass wrote:
The advantages of using P14 tags (...equals lang IDs mark-up) is
that runs of text could be tagged *in a standard fashion* and
preserved in plain-text.
Sure, but why do we want to place so much demand on plain text when the
vast majority of content we
At 16:47 -0500 2003-02-05, Jim Allan wrote:
There are often conflicting orthographic usages within a language.
Language tagging alone does not indicate whether German text is to
be rendered in Roman or Fraktur, whether Gaelic text is to be
rendered in Roman or Uncial, and if Uncial, a modern
.
Asmus Freytag wrote,
Variation selectors also can be ignored based on their code
point values, but unlike p14 tags, they don't become invalid
when text is cutpaste from the middle of a string.
Excellent point.
Unicode 4.0 will be quite specific: P14 tags are reserved for
use with
.
Peter Constable wrote,
Sure, but why do we want to place so much demand on plain text when the
vast majority of content we interchange is in some form of marked-up or
rich text? Let's let plain text be that -- plain -- and look to the markup
conventions that we've invested so much in and
On 01/30/2003 03:03:24 PM Anto'nio Martins-Tuva'lkin wrote:
Not very different from the serbian vs. russian rendition of cyrillic
lower case i in italics. There are more examples, though (almost?)
none in the latin script.
There are indeed some examples in Latin script. For instance, there are
.
Peter Constable wrote,
There are indeed some examples in Latin script. For instance, there are
three different typeforms form 014A used by different language communities.
It's also been reported that there's a strong local preference
for a variant of U+0257 in certain African language
Peter Constable wrote,
There are indeed some examples in Latin script. For instance, there are
three different typeforms form 014A used by different language communities.
It's also been reported that there's a strong local preference
for a variant of U+0257 in certain African language
On 2003.01.29, 05:52, Aditya Gokhale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. In Marathi and Sanskrit language two characters glyphs of 'la' and
'sha' are represented differently as shown in the image below -
(First glyph is 'la' and second one is 'sha')
as compared to Hindi where these character glyphs
Hi Aditya,
--- Aditya Gokhale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had few query regarding representation of Devanagari script in
Unicode
(Code page - 0x0900 - 0x097F). Devanagari is a writing script, is used in
Hindi, Marathi and Sanskrit languages. I have following questions -
In the same
Hi,
Forgot to reply implementation query. The reply is inline.
--- Aditya Gokhale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Implementation Query -
In an implementation where I need to send / process Hindi, Marathi
and Sanskrit data, how do I differentiate between languages (Hindi,
Marathi and
Hello,
Thanks for the reply. I will check the points as you said, as far as the
font issues are considered. We all know how jna,shra and ksh are formed in
UNICODE and ISCII, but the point I wanted to make was, if we have to sort /
search / process the data in Devanagari script, then we have
Aditya Gokhale wrote:
Hello Everybody,
I had few query regarding representation of Devanagari
script in Unicode
All your questions are FAQ's, so I'll just reference the entries which
answers them.
(Code page - 0x0900 - 0x097F). Devanagari is a writing
script, is used in Hindi, Marathi
--- Asmus Freytag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All of the above can be composed through following consonant clusters:
jna - ja halant nya
shra - sha halant ra
ksh - ka halant ssha
The point that the above sequences are considered as characters in some
of
the Indian languages has
Keyur Shroff scripsit:
Sentiments are attached with cultures which may vary from one geographical
area to another. So when one of the many languages falling under the same
script dominate the entire encoding for the script, then other group of
people may feel that their language has not been
At 02:13 -0800 2003-01-29, Keyur Shroff wrote:
I beg to differ with you on this point. Merely having some provision for
composing a character doesn't mean that the character is not a candidate
for inclusion as separate code point.
Yes, it does.
India is a big country with millions of people
I wouldn't go so far. The fact that clusters belong together is something
that can be handled by the software. Collation and other data processing
needs to deal with such issues already for many other languages. See
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr10 on the collation algorithm.
I
Michael Everson wrote:
At 02:13 -0800 2003-01-29, Keyur Shroff wrote:
I beg to differ with you on this point. Merely having some provision for
composing a character doesn't mean that the character is not a candidate
for inclusion as separate code point.
Yes, it does.
India is a big
Aditya Gokhale wrote:
1. In Marathi and Sanskrit language two characters glyphs of
'la' and 'sha' are represented differently as shown in the
image below -
Actually, for everyone's information: these allographs for Marathi were
recently brought to our attention, and Unicode 4.0 will have a
Christopher John Fynn wrote:
I had thought that the argument for including KSSA as a seperate
character in the Tibetan block (rather than only having U+0F40 and
U+0FB5) was originally for compatibility / cross mapping with
Devanagari and other Indic scripts.
Which is not a valid reason
Hello Everybody, I had few query
regarding representation of Devanagari script in Unicode(Code page - 0x0900
- 0x097F). Devanagari is a writing script, isused in Hindi, Marathi and
Sanskrit languages. I have following questions -
1. In Marathi and Sanskrit language two charactersglyphs
of
33 matches
Mail list logo
