On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:33:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Andrew C. West scripsit:
>
> > These are glyph variants of Phags-pa letters that are used with semantic
> > distinctiveness in a single (but very important) text, _Menggu Ziyun_ , a
14th
> > century rhyming dictionary of Chinese in
Andrew C. West scripsit:
> These are glyph variants of Phags-pa letters that are used with semantic
> distinctiveness in a single (but very important) text, _Menggu Ziyun_ , a 14th
> century rhyming dictionary of Chinese in which Chinese ideographs are listed by
> their Phags-pa spellings. In this
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:36:54 -0800, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
> Currently, Variation Selectors work only one way. You could 'force' one
> particular
> shape. Leaving the VS off, gives you no restriction, leaving the software free
> to give you either shape. W/o defining the use of two VSs you cannot
On 20/01/2004 00:36, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
Chinese ideographs don't quite fit either Andrews example or my reply
- the nature
of the problem is different due to both the large set of base
characters and
the (potentially) large number of (non-deterministic) variations --
together with
the fac
Just a few comments on Andrew's note:
At 06:43 AM 1/19/2004, Andrew C. West wrote:
An analogy for those not familiar with the Mongolian script is the much
beloved
long s, which is a positional glyph variant of the ordinary letter s for some
languages at some periods of time. The long s does not n
Andrew C. West wrote at 6:43 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
>Once the
>rules have been established (hopefully soon), and incorporated into the
fonts,
>rendering engines and IMEs, then everything should work like a well-oiled
>machine.
Do legacy Mongolian electronic text systems work well? I ask,
Andrew C. West wrote at 6:43 AM on Monday, January 19, 2004:
>Knowing nothing about Cuneiform, I can't say whether FVSs are a suitable
>option
>for Cuneiform or not, but if Dean is thinking about using FVSs like ordinary
>Variation Selectors (i.e. applied manually by the user to select a distinct
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:23:31 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Dean Snyder wrote,
>
> > Tom Gewecke wrote at 2:26 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
> > ...
> > >
> > >Agreed. I can't imagine that anyone who has ever tried to actually do
> > >anything with Unicode Mongolian would recommend varia
At 09:23 PM 1/18/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seriously, it's my understanding that implementation guidelines
for Mongolian script and Unicode are still being worked out.
You are correct. A group of experts is currently working out a definite
description of how Mongolian should work.
All the issu
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
> Tom Gewecke wrote at 2:26 PM on Sunday, January 18, 2004:
> ...
> >
> >Agreed. I can't imagine that anyone who has ever tried to actually do
> >anything with Unicode Mongolian would recommend variation selectors as an
> >encoding technique, unless perhaps they wanted to m
.
Dean Snyder wrote,
> SOMEONE at SOMETIME must have thought that free variation selectors were
> a good idea for Mongolian in Unicode. If the thinking has changed on this
> since then, I would love to hear about why it has changed. Is Mongolian
> functioning well in Unicode or not? If not, what s
11 matches
Mail list logo
