Michael Everson scripsit:
> There is no such thing as a semi-private character. There are
> standardized characters (which have particular meanings), and there
> are private use characters (which are guaranteed to have no meanings
> at all).
There's glory (by which I mean: a nice knockdown arg
At 23:29 +0200 2003-10-16, Philippe Verdy wrote:
I would definitely prefer to have a system in which any leakage of private
uses could be controled under a well-known policy requiring a reservation
in a publicly accessible registry, like domain names.
Well, you can't. Private Use is Private Use. Y
On 16/10/2003 11:07, Rick McGowan wrote:
John Cowan suggested:
The earth is finite and small, and there's no place for
large writing systems to hide from the eagle eyes of the Roadmappers.
Central Asia.
;-)
Rick
.
No, Michael has been there!
--
Peter Kirk
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Asmus Freytag scripsit:
> I disagree.
I knew some German or Hungarian was going to slug me over this one.
The Hungarian inflation of 1944-46 was something like 10^29, even worse
than the German one. The last six months, January-July 1946, can
be characterized by a *double exponential* growth ra
At 11:07 -0700 2003-10-16, Rick McGowan wrote:
John Cowan suggested:
The earth is finite and small, and there's no place for
large writing systems to hide from the eagle eyes of the Roadmappers.
Central Asia.
Our eyes are everywhere.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.ever
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> What would happen if ISO10646 decided to stop its work, giving up to let
IANA contract with external registrars, just to comply with an rapid
industry need to publish more medias and still interoperate?
There would be utter chaos, and some character tsar would have to
John Cowan suggested:
> The earth is finite and small, and there's no place for
> large writing systems to hide from the eagle eyes of the Roadmappers.
Central Asia.
;-)
Rick
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> Just for the case it would be needed, are you keeping an unassigned range
> in the BMP so that extension will remain possible to preserve an ascending
> compatibility or support for UTF-16 which currently is the main reason why
> there are for now 17 planes defined ?
No
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy scripsit:
>
> > I am also doubting, but I would not bet on it. After all, when Unicode
> > started, a single plane was considered waay more than sufficient
too.
>
> I not only would bet on it, I actually have a bet on it. Henry Thompson
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> I am also doubting, but I would not bet on it. After all, when Unicode
> started, a single plane was considered waay more than sufficient too.
I not only would bet on it, I actually have a bet on it. Henry Thompson
of the W3C's Schema WG bet me that we'd outrun the
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> As a scientist, I don't believe in clairvoyance. I do, however, think
> that "maybe ... sometime in the future ..." is a reasonable enough
> statement to make, and that "...will most assuredly ...as long as you
> and I are here" is a very dangerous predicition to make (un
-Original Message-
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:19 AM
To: Philippe Verdy; Nelson H. F. Beebe
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Java char and Unicode 3.0+ (was:Canonical equivalence in
rendering: mandatory or recommended?)
> planes with
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> Don't even begin to count on this. U+10 will most assuredly be the
> upper limit as long as you and I are here to talk about it.
Unless Earth joins the Galactic Federation, in which case we will have
to rethink the Ultra-Astral Planes.
--
Long-short-short, long-short
Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2. The initial spec of UTF-32 and UTF-8 by ISO allowed much more
> planes with 31-bit codepoints, and may be there will be an agreement
> sometime in the future between ISO and Unicode to define new
> codepoints out of the current standard 17 first planes that can be
> saf
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
> [...] char, whose values are 16-bit unsigned integers
> representing Unicode characters (section 2.1).
Despite your ingenious special pleading, I don't see how this can mean
anything except that chars must be 16-bit unsigned integers.
> The Java language still lacks a
From: "Nelson H. F. Beebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jill Ramonsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Canonical equivalence in rendering: mandatory or recommended?
> [This is off the unicode list.
16 matches
Mail list logo
