James Kass wrote,
Enter the marks above (tone marks) first, then enter marks below.
My error. Enter either the marks below first or the marks above
first. It's equivalent and the display is supposed to be the same
either way. There was a problem with the font here...
The inside out rule
Michael Everson wrote:
This is no different from Welsh:
A B C CH D DD E F FF G NG
All of those are considered letters in the Welsh alphabet. They are
all significant. But that doesn't mean that ch and dd get encoded
as single entities. They write c + h and d + d.
In Yoruba, you treat gb as
From: John Hudson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I thought about missing African letters like barred-R, barred-W, etc... with
combining overlay diacritics (whose usage has been strongly discouraged
within
Unicode).
May be a font could handle theses combinations gracefully with
Philippe Verdy verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr wrote:
A problem, however, is that many such forms are found in unstable
orthographies, and are difficult to document adequately for inclusion
in proposals.
This last argument should not be a limitation to encode them. After
all they are
Philippe Verdy wrote:
A problem, however, is that many such forms are found in unstable
orthographies, and are difficult to document adequately for inclusion in
proposals.
This last argument should not be a limitation to encode them. After all they are
used for living languages in danger of
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The danger of encoding novel characters on speculation that they might
be useful is that if they *don't* turn out to be useful, or if a revised
version of the orthography replaces them with something else, Unicode
and 10646 are stuck with unwanted characters,
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
Philippe Verdy wrote,
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be
made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
But what about characters that may theorically be composed
At 07:21 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
E with dot below and grave accent
E with dot below and acute accent
O with dot below and grave accent
O with dot below and acute accent
These can all be represented by combining sequences already.
GB written together as the Norwegian Æ, this is
At 14:39 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
Gbogbo awon are GB ti de. - All people from Great Britain have arrived.
Going further to be a bit funny I can say Great Britain o great britain o
awon ara Great Britain ti de.
A situation I am driving at is when looking at the GB it can be
significant
is significant?
A B D E E F G GB
Dele
- Original Message -
From: Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
At 14:39 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
Gbogbo awon are GB ti de
Dele Olawole wrote,
That is what I have said that gb is a letter, a single letter and not
combination of letter. Look at this statement -
Gbogbo awon are GB ti de. - All people from Great Britain have arrived.
Going further to be a bit funny I can say Great Britain o great britain o
awon
At 15:15 +0200 2004-05-03, African Oracle wrote:
Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how can you
equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How significant
is significant?
A B D E E F G GB
This is no different from Welsh:
A B C CH D DD E F FF G
Dele Olawole wrote,
Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how can you
equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How significant
is significant?
A B D E E F G GB
Please take a moment to visit this page:
http://www.unicode.org/standard/where/
Philippe Verdy scripsit:
But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successfully?
That is a deficiency in either the font or the operating system.
Under a proper Unicode-based OS, one can always create
At 06:17 AM 5/3/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unicode considers such combinations of letters to be presentation forms
of letters which are already covered in the Unicode Standard. Although
for the Yoruba language, the gb digraph is treated as a single letter,
for computer encoding it is a string
Dele a.k.a. African Oracle oracle at africaservice dot com wrote:
GB is a different from G+B You do not pronunce the letters separately
but people that do not know anything about the language do which is
wrong. It is about correction and proper representation.
What Michael and others have
Asmus Freytag wrote,
This is only true if:
a) there is no visual differentiation
There is no visual differentiation in any of the examples I've ever seen.
I would like to see a (small) picture of Yoruba text with these digraphs.
I sent a small picture off-list taken from this on-line
There is no problem with the dot below concerning all the letters
I was
talking about, the problems are with the accents which are not
properly
positioned and in font development for example there are standard
positions.
Look at the following examples as sent by ke
E the
Here are few Yoruba alphabets which might not be new to you, so how
can
you
equate G+B with GB even if you claimed it has significant. How
significant
is significant?
A B D E E F G GB
It is certainly the case that in the Yoruba alphabet gb is a distinct
unit - the term we use for that
- Original Message -
From: African Oracle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 2004 May 03 04:47
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization. Others can better tell
Please look at some samples here - http://www.dnetcom.com/Fonts/index.html
Dele
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: African Oracle [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
Dele Olawole wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] scripsit:
Wondering about casing, if the gb diagraph appears initially, I have
a booklet for learning Yoruba which includes the proper name of the
Rt. Rev. Isaac Gbekeleoluwa Abiodun Jadesimi in the bilingual dedication.
In both the Yoruba and English versions of the
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I thought about missing African letters like barred-R, barred-W, etc... with
combining overlay diacritics (whose usage has been strongly discouraged within
Unicode).
May be a font could handle theses combinations gracefully with custom glyph
substitution rules similar to the
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
This is the first time of coming across the link that you sent and it is
appreciated Åke Persson.
Trying to experiment and see how it goes.
Regards
Dele
- Original Message -
From: Åke Persson [EMAIL
Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since the
character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be, at
low font size they are disaster. Using Fontlab to design the fonts and
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
sequences, but almost always fail to be represented successfully?
On Mon, 03 May 2004 01:45:48 -0800, D. Starner wrote:
Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization. Others can better tell
you how to get the job done with what you have.
Others can only tell how nice it would be if
, May 03, 2004 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Nice to join this forum
Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since
the
character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be,
at
low
: Nice to join this forum
Yes, I have looked at the code and infact used the Microsoft Keyboard
Keyboard Layout without any success. One thing I observed is that since
the
character are not drawn with the accent assigned where they should be,
at
low font size they are disaster. Using
Philippe Verdy wrote,
From: D. Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unicode will not allocate any more codes for characters that can be made
precomposed, as it would disrupt normalization.
But what about characters that may theorically be composed with combining
sequences, but almost always fail
Dele Olawole wrote,
Ẹ ́ the accent is at the edge of the E with dot below - It is the same no
matter which font is used
On this Ọ̀ it almost fell off
éẹ́èẹ̀ - On all these ones they are not on the same level
One reason that it displays badly is because it is encoded wrong.
In the first
It is nice to join this forum and hope to gain and contribute to discussions
here. I am Dele Olawole, the CEO of D-Net Communications www.dnetcom.com
based in Norway. My involvement with developing Africa related contents
offer me the opportunity to go into developing African fonts with special
32 matches
Mail list logo
