On 4/19/2019 6:57 PM, Shriramana Sharma
via Unicode wrote:
I don't know many modern fonts that display 007C
as a broken glyph. In fact I haven't seen a broken line pipe
glyph since the MS-DOS days. Nowadays we have 00A6 for that.
I don't know many modern fonts that display 007C as a broken glyph. In fact
I haven't seen a broken line pipe glyph since the MS-DOS days. Nowadays we
have 00A6 for that.
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:30:32 +0100
From: Richard Wordingham
To: Shriramana Sharma
Subject: Re: Latin Script Danda
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:33:35 +0530
Shriramana Sharma via Unicode wrote:
> We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in
We are using the pipe character as it is readily available in our
favourite Latin script fonts. See for example:
https://twitter.com/ShriramanaS/status/793480884116529152
It would be ideal for Sanskrit/Indic text in IAST/ISO to be
displayable/printable using any common Latin font which is found
Which character should one use for a danda in the Latin script? I
believed normal usage is to use U+0964 DEVANAGARI DANDA, but for some
reason its script extension property does not include the Latin script.
Richard.
On 06/11/2018 12:04, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27 2018 at 14:10 +0200, Janusz S. Bień via Unicode wrote:
Hi!
On the over 100 years old postcard
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GbwNwYbEQMjZaFgE6
you can see 2 occurences of a symbol which is explicitely explained (in
Polish) as
Thanks A./
This list is not a service bureau for providing custom data.
But do you know why some Greek letters/symbols (never used by Latin
speakers) are now named as Latin by Mark (Unicode, Inc President)?
Is this an attempt to re-write history?
Why don't you just use from Greek script
name?
- Can you email the list of these letters/symbols as well, including
names?
Thanks,
Tulasi
-- Appended message --
From: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Mark Davis ☕ m...@macchiato.com
Cc: Unicode Mailing List
Tulasi said on Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:25:01PM -0700,:
Can you email the list of Latin letters/symbols that Unicode discovered?
Can you also email list of letters/symbols that are not Latin but each
has LATIN in its name?
Can you email the list of these letters/symbols as well,
There is absolutely no reason for quoting a bunch of prior emails in your
reply. Please have the decency to trim your replies.
-On [20100706 01:08], Tulasi (tulas...@gmail.com) wrote:
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{script:latin}b=\p{name:/LATIN/}
www.unicode.org,
Isn't that because you forgot the backslapshes before p{...}, when
naming properties ?
Without those backslashes, the compared sets (specified in parameters
a and b of the request both include the letter 'p' and braces, ant it
is the names of properties that are compared.
This should be:
-On [20100706 21:10], Philippe Verdy (verd...@wanadoo.fr) wrote:
All of these work for me, there's no proxy error.
At least for a period yesterday, when I also did my testing on the URL,
there was some reachability issue. I just retested and it works. So I am
thinking some reverse proxy upstream
Script
To: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Cc: Unicode Mailing List unicode@unicode.org, Doug Ewell
d...@ewellic.org, Edward Cherlin echer...@gmail.com
See the following for the (*many*) differences between characters with the
Latin script, and those with LATIN in their names.
http://unicode.org/cldr
Jonathan is absolutely right!
I did read as well, but looks like quick reading habit lacks efficiency :-')
Tulasi
From: Jonathan Rosenne j...@qsm.co.il
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 08:44:18 +0300
Subject: RE: Latin Script
To: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com, unicode@unicode.org
Did you not read my answer
It seems I made a minor mistake on classic Latin script
According to link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Latin_alphabet
J U W are not included in classic Latin script.
Tulasi
From: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 19:53:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: vanis
: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On
Behalf Of Tulasi
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 3:32 AM
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Latin Script
It seems I made a minor mistake on classic Latin script
According to link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki
/symbols with names please?
Tulasi
PS: Thanks Doug, especially for posting the links
From: Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 16:09:41 -0600
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Unicode Mailing List unicode@unicode.org
Cc: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Tulasi tulasird at gmail dot com wrote
See the following for the (*many*) differences between characters with the
Latin script, and those with LATIN in their names.
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{script:latin}b=\p{name:/LATIN/}
I'd suggest taking a more focused approach to learning about the standard,
rather than
Tulasi tulasird at gmail dot com wrote:
Looks like Unicode did not create any name for any Latin letter/symbol
with LATIN in its name :-')
Am I correct?
Probably not, if you take into account something like U+2C70 (Ɒ) LATIN
CAPITAL LETTER TURNED ALPHA, which was added in Unicode 5.2, or
of taking up
their time in repeating it all in personal answers to you.
A./
On 6/28/2010 9:37 PM, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
See the following for the (/many/) differences between characters with
the Latin script, and those with LATIN in their names.
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/unicodeset.jsp
ISO/IEC 8859-1 ISO/IEC 8859-2 - ok to use in between, but
part-one part-two are clearly indicated using -1 -2.
U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does
not contain LATIN) is considered part of the Latin script, while
U+271D LATIN CROSS (which does) is considered common to all scripts
Tulasi tulasird at gmail dot com wrote:
U+00AA FEMININE ORDINAL INDICATOR (which does not contain LATIN) is
considered part of the Latin script, while U+271D LATIN CROSS (which
does) is considered common to all scripts.
Can you post both symbols please, thanks?
I can point you to http
and ISO/IEC standards bodies, who can be credited
for creating any name for any letter/symbol that has LATIN in it?
Stop obsessing over whether any given character name has LATIN in it.
It does not matter.
If you want to know what characters belong to the Latin script in the
Unicode sense, use
, who can be credited
for creating any name for any letter/symbol that has LATIN in it?
Tulasi
PS: Thanks Doug, the link is pretty useful!
From: Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:05:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Unicode Mailing List unicode@unicode.org
Tulasi tulasird
in corresponding
Unicode.
Am I correct on above?
The link is useful Otto, thanks!
And John, my platform is WinXp from Versionsoft :) and I use Firefox.
Tulasi
From: Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:07:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Cc: Kenneth
Tulasi tulasird at gmail dot com wrote:
Moreover, the code-numbers as well as names for letters/symbols used
for ISO/IEC 8859-1 ISO/IEC 8859-2 are also identical in corresponding
Unicode.
No. See http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/ .
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
Hello Tulasi,
on 2010-06-18 04:24, you have asked:
Or do Unicode ISO/IEC use different number name for same letter/symbol?
You might find enlightening the FAQ on “Unicode and ISO 10646”
http://www.unicode.org/faq/unicode_iso.html.
Best wishes,
Otto Stolz
Thanks Ken!
What is equivalent ISO/IEC for U+0278 LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ)?
Or do Unicode ISO/IEC use different number name for same letter/symbol?
Tulasi
From: Kenneth Whistler k...@sybase.com
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Latin Script
To: tulas...@gmail.com
Cc
On 6/17/2010 7:24 PM, Tulasi wrote:
What is equivalent ISO/IEC
ISO/IEC what?
There are hundreds of ISO/IEC standards, of which dozens are character
encoding standards.
for U+0278 LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ)?
Or do Unicode ISO/IEC use different number name for same letter/symbol?
, probably
created by programmers/coders. Have I guessed correctly A./ ? :)
Scholarly community uses names (or phrases) highlighting rationale
(basis for the name).
Tulasi
From: John Dlugosz jdlug...@tradestation.com
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:25:27 -0400
Subject: RE: Latin Script
To: vanis
languages (with Latin orthographies).
Both of those 8-bit character encodings include many
punctuation and symbol characters other than just Latin
letters, so they aren't really subsets of the Latin
script at all.
--Ken
Amazingly, I consider Latin Small Letter Phi to be a part of the Latin
script. Why?: in my typographic life, I would design it differently
from Greek small Letter Phi. The Greek phi needs to work with other
Greek letters. The Latin phi needs to work in phonetic notation, which
is Latin
Now, how many letters/symbols in that link are like LATIN SMALL
LETTER PHI (ɸ), i.e., not from Latin-script?
Also, how do I find the list of letters/symbols that do not have LATIN
in names but from Latin-script?
Tulasi
From: Edward Cherlin echer...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:58:56 -0400
From: Tulasi tulas...@gmail.com
Thanks for the input Edward!
Yep, I shell explore time-chronology as well.
Edward - Close, but not quite. Consider LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ).
Amazingly, I consider Latin Small Letter Phi to be a part of the Latin script.
Why?: in my typographic life, I
to be
classic Latin script. Also see the email by Jonathan Rosenne.
If you read Edward's email he highlighted on chronology (of adoption
from different scripts).
Did true Latin speakers adopt LATIN SMALL LETTER PHI (ɸ) to Latin script?
Or was it done very recently after Unicode was created?
May I ask
Mark - http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=\p{sc%3DLatn}
I think I have got the answer to my question in above link. Thanks Mark!
Any letter/symbol has LATIN as part of its name should be pat of
present day Latin-script.
Is there any new letter/symbol added to Latin-script
: Sunday, June 06, 2010 11:27 AM
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Latin Script
How do you define Latin Script?
From: Tulasi (tulas...@gmail.com)
How do you define Latin Script?
Do you mean historically or pragmatically? Historically, it is an adaptation of
the Ionian Greek (or is it Doric?), via Etruscan, for the purpose of writing
Latin, and later extended by the addition of alternate letterforms (J
Jony - A B C D E F G H I K L M N O P Q R S T V X Y Z
?
You mean ALL CAPS again like UNICODE :)
Van - Do you mean historically or pragmatically?
Actually something that will include all letters/symbols now
considered Latin-script
Otto Stolz - Not exactly a definition: What
How do you define Latin Script?
Eric Muller schrieb:
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin script
for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support
it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports
the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's
is this sentence related to the discussion described in
the header?
and more likely to follow their local leaders than the linguistic
imperialists in Moscow, it is highly likely that at least some of
them use the published Latin script even if it is not permitted to
have official status.
True again. No one
into Latin before
publishing.
This is true, and proves my point. Cyrillic script is not the official
script in Azerbaijan, and may not be used in publications, signs etc.
Nevertheless, it is in widespread use. Therefore, Unicode needs to
support it. The same applies to the Tatar Latin script
of the Latin script for spelling
Tatar language I witnessed was indeed in media sponsored by, or under
the responsability of the Tatarstan Government.
--.
António MARTINS-Tuválkin | ()|
[EMAIL
What's all the fuss, then?
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin script
for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support it,
then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports the
Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin script
for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support
it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports
the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's
Eric Muller wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin
script for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode
support it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode
supports the Latin script, with gobs of extensions
people use. Do people use Latin script
for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode support
it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode supports
the Latin script, with gobs of extensions. So what's the problem?
Are there any characters in Latin transcription
On 27/07/2004 18:29, Eric Muller wrote:
Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
Unicode exists to support what people use. Do people use Latin
script for Tatar? Evidence indicates that they do. Should Unicode
support it, then? Certainly. Does Unicode support it? Yes, Unicode
supports the Latin script
for this? You don't want to tell everyone on the net
about his or her wrong assumptions. There's one sentence in the page
you mentioned that gives a good description of this resource:
The conversion from Cyrillic to Latin script is planned within years
2001-2011.
This is false.
3. The case
about these?
There is legal wrangling
over wether Tatarstan can make the change back to Latin script official
for Tatar as it is used there, but no final decision has been reached and
there is probably at least several more years of legal shenanigans
before it is reached.
You're wrong
other places where
Tatars
live. This alphabet therefore needs to be supported by Unicode. But
fortunately this is not a problem as all the characters are already
defined.
Peter is absolutely right. Whether the Russian government has banned
the Latin script for writing Tatar is irrelevant. It has
Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase dot com wrote:
And Eki should be notified that the statement on the site about
the barred o's is incorrect.
They've got an interesting little site there, with lots of information
pertaining to both Unicode and 8-bit encodings, but some misinformation
as well.
On 2004.05.12, 00:08, Eric Muller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
less-than-perfect but annotated name for U+019F, and from the usage
remark African. Can we authoritatively tell them that those two
characters are the ones they want? Can we add a Tatar usage remark
to both?
As easily as we can
a good description of this resource:
The conversion from Cyrillic to Latin script is planned within years
2001-2011.
This is false.
3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from my
memory of the discussion of ghe with descender, we would want to encode
them as separate
. There's one sentence in the page
you mentioned that gives a good description of this resource:
The conversion from Cyrillic to Latin script is planned within years
2001-2011.
This is false.
3. The case pair n with descender is definitely not encoded, and from my
memory of the discussion of ghe
2. The case pair for barred o is encoded (U+019F and U+0275), and it
seems that their confusion comes from less-than-perfect but annotated
name for U+019F, and from the usage remark African. Can we
authoritatively tell them that those two characters are the ones they
want?
IMO, yes.
Can we
Eric Muller wrote:
According to www.eki.ee, there is a currently an effort to convert the
writing of Tatar from Cyrillic to Latin.
Alexander Savenkov said:
There's no Latin Tatar script. It's the law. Full stop.
Ernest Cline said:
They are numerous sites on the web about the change from
According to www.eki.ee, there is a currently an effort to convert the
writing of Tatar from Cyrillic to Latin.
1. Does somebody have more information about that effort?
Eki lists four characters as needed but missing in Unicode (see
Eric,
1. Does somebody have more information about that effort?
Eki lists four characters as needed but missing in Unicode (see
http://www.eki.ee/letter/chardata.cgi?lang=tt+Tatarscript=latin).
I had suggested earlier that Tartar be added to the special case rules for
dotted and dotless I
60 matches
Mail list logo
