At 00:23 + 2003-02-13, Andy White wrote:
When ever I have written a paper or mentioned errors and problems with
the Indic FAQ, there is always an overall lack of response on this list.
This has lead me to believe in the past, that you guys are not
interested. If this were not the case I am su
At 08:13 AM 2/12/03 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Even then, you may be behind a time lag of more than one month because
> the UTC meetings minutes are posted a little late. So, to be fully
> aware, apart from becoming a member, you should also attend UTC
> meetings.
I would imagine that issues like
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 06:53 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
>
> >What gave you the power to suddenly come up with encoding
> innovations
> >such as this?
>
> Andy, you're being silly.
No, not silly, but yes, I was overreacting a little bit maybe ;-)
(sometimes I puzzle over why suc
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 02:27 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
> >I said:
> >? (I am talking about the letters mentioned in the Unicode Indic FAQ,
> > > http://www.unicode.org/faq/indic.html#13)
> >
> >Just to be clear, I mean the letters called 'Vowel_A_zophola_AA' &
> >'Vowel_E_zophola_
At 02:27 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
I said:
? (I am talking about the letters mentioned in the Unicode Indic FAQ,
> http://www.unicode.org/faq/indic.html#13)
Just to be clear, I mean the letters called 'Vowel_A_zophola_AA' &
'Vowel_E_zophola_AA' as mentioned in the above mentioned FAQ.
At 06:53 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
What gave you the power to suddenly come up with encoding innovations
such as this?
Andy, you're being silly.
The FAQ has continually been queried and criticised since it was put up,
but you are seriously going to stand by it aren't you.
Andy, if
On 02/12/2003 06:48:57 AM Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>That is not the Unicode procedure for encoding new characters. The public
>Unicode list is informal and informational. If you want to be aware of all
>standardisation decisions of Unicode, you should become a member of the
>Unicode Consortium. I
Marco Cimarosti mentioned...
> if it had a canonical composition, I would have posted a
> formal error report to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]", rather than
> just a lazy comment on the Unicode List.
By the way, there is no such address any more. It was discontinued a long
time ago. Please report errata u
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I would imagine that issues like this are also discussed on the
> members-only UnicoRe list.
It's not about discussions, but final decisions. Discussions happen, but
from my personal experience I can tell you that what will be decided
finally is not always
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Even then, you may be behind a time lag of more than one month because
> the UTC meetings minutes are posted a little late. So, to be fully
> aware, apart from becoming a member, you should also attend UTC
> meetings.
I would imagine that issues like this are also disc
Andy continued:
> > In principle, at some point in the future, either the
> > phonology or the orthography or both could evolve to
> > the point where the entire constructs start to get handled
> > as basic orthographic units (or "letters") for Bengali,
> > but it isn't really the place of the Un
At 07:09 -0500 2003-02-12, John Cowan wrote:
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
An example which comes to mind is
using "kl'" to try to represent a lateral affricate,
for example.
Notably (though without the apostrophe) as in "Klingon".
Written orthographically "tlh" in that language.
--
Michael
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Andy White wrote:
> I do regularly check the Unicode site for proposed new characters and
> scripts. I did not notice the ORIYA WA before. This must have only just
> recently been added.
You are right, it was accepted in last December's ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2
meeting, in Tokyo
Kenneth Whistler scripsit:
> An example which comes to mind is
> using "kl'" to try to represent a lateral affricate,
> for example.
Notably (though without the apostrophe) as in "Klingon".
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To say that Bilbo's br
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > > It has been repeated a lot of times that no more
> precomposed character
> > will
> > > never ever ever ever be added. ...
>
> I trust the clarification from John Cowan helped on this -- there
> is no prohibition against adding characters w
.
Andy White wrote,
> So to cut a long story short. Out of Wa and Va, Only Va correctly
> belongs to the alphabet. Wa is a modern innovation
So is the Hmong script, yet the entire script is being proposed
for inclusion.
Best regards,
James Kass
.
> Michael Everson wrote:
>
> > At 02:05 + 2
Kenneth Whistler also wrote:
Andy wrote:
> > And the well-defined way [to encode A+zophola+AA] is?
>
> Described in the FAQ, and to be described in the text
> of Unicode 4.0.
I'm in shock.
What gave you the power to suddenly come up with encoding innovations
such as this?
The FAQ has continua
Kenneth Whistler wrote among other things:
>>
> But in any case, you may be right about ORIYA WA, but if
> you are right, you are also too late to do anything about
> it, unfortunately. This kind of input is why the standards
> process is deliberately stretched out, taking years to get
> from o
Michael Everson wrote:
> At 02:05 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
> >Thank you for the reply.
> >
> >Given this information, I wonder if anyone can tell me why
> the 'Bengali
> >letter AE' and 'Bengali Letter EA' were never included in
> the UCS? (I
> >am talking about the letters mentione
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> The problem here is in part the result of too easily
> using the term "letter" here.
>
> These things are really a Bengali orthographic solution
> to the problem of representing vowel sounds (in borrowed
> words) that are alien to the "slots" of the basic
> phonology,
Michael Everson will probably also answer, but yes, he
knows what you are talking about.
The problem here is in part the result of too easily
using the term "letter" here.
These things are really a Bengali orthographic solution
to the problem of representing vowel sounds (in borrowed
words) that
I said:
? (I am talking about the letters
> mentioned in the Unicode Indic FAQ,
> http://www.unicode.org/faq/indic.html#13)
Just to be clear, I mean the letters called 'Vowel_A_zophola_AA' &
'Vowel_E_zophola_AA' as mentioned in the above mentioned FAQ.
Andy
At 02:05 + 2003-02-12, Andy White wrote:
Thank you for the reply.
Given this information, I wonder if anyone can tell me why the 'Bengali
letter AE' and 'Bengali Letter EA' were never included in the UCS?
(I am talking about the letters mentioned in the Unicode Indic FAQ,
http://www.unicode.o
ml#13)
Thanks
Andy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Kenneth Whistler
> Sent: 12 February 2003 01:38
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Never say never
>
>
>
Andy White wrote:
> And I today see that the precomposed character '0B71 ORIYA LETTER WA'
> has been added to the UCS4.0 charts
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U40-0B00.pdf
> This is clearly a composition of ORIYA LETTER O and ORIYA LETTER LETTER
> VA (BA).
People on the list today are playin
At 23:53 + 2003-02-11, Andy White wrote:
And I today see that the precomposed character '0B71 ORIYA LETTER WA'
has been added to the UCS4.0 charts
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U40-0B00.pdf
This is clearly a composition of ORIYA LETTER O and ORIYA LETTER LETTER
VA (BA).
That's its origi
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > It has been repeated a lot of times that no more precomposed character
> will
> > never ever ever ever be added. ...
I trust the clarification from John Cowan helped on this -- there
is no prohibition against adding characters with *compatibility*
decomposition mapping
Maurice Bauhahn wrote:
> Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> > It has been repeated a lot of times that no more
> precomposed character
> will
> > never ever ever ever be added. ...
>
> In Unicode 4.0 there is a whole block (in the base plane, no
> less) of precomposed characters representing Khmer lunar
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> It has been repeated a lot of times that no more precomposed character
will
> never ever ever ever be added. ...
In Unicode 4.0 there is a whole block (in the base plane, no less) of
precomposed characters representing Khmer lunar dates (similar to vulgar
fractions though
Marco Cimarosti scripsit:
> It has been repeated a lot of times that no more precomposed character will
> never ever ever ever be added. But now I see from
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U40-2100.pdf that the following new
> character will be added in 4.0:
>
> - code: U+213B
> - name: FACSIM
Marco Cimarosti wrote:
It has been repeated a lot of times that no more precomposed character will
never ever ever ever be added. ...
Stability requires that no more precomposed characters will be added that are equivalent to
sequences of already-existing other characters. This is because it wo
At 18:38 +0100 2003-02-11, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
- code: U+213B
- name: FACSIMILE SIGN
- compatibility decomposition: U+0046 U+0041 U+0058
- translation in plain English: a character to encode the word "FAX", in all
capitals.
Surely not. I am pretty sure that is the Icelandic word FAX, genitiv
Unicode's "(n)ever"'s can sometimes be puzzling.
It has been repeated a lot of times that no more precomposed character will
never ever ever ever be added. But now I see from
http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U40-2100.pdf that the following new
character will be added in 4.0:
- code: U+213B
- nam
33 matches
Mail list logo
