The recently posted minutes from UTC #144
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15187.htm include the following:
B.11.1.1.3 PRI 299 feedback and mailing list discussion [Edberg,
L2/15-210]
Discussion. UTC took no action at this time.
and:
[144-A93] Action Item for Rick McGowan: Close PRI #299
Ken Whistler kenwhistler at att dot net wrote:
but the upshot is basically that the Emoji SC
has general direction to take all the feedback and discussion and
work up a more detailed proposal that addresses all of the issues
involved. At some point that will appear as a new proposal for
Doug,
On 8/13/2015 7:58 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
The recently posted minutes from UTC #144
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2015/15187.htm include the following:
B.11.1.1.3 PRI 299 feedback and mailing list discussion [Edberg,
L2/15-210]
Discussion. UTC took no action at this time.
and:
[144-A93
, a
specific version thereof, or a specific editor, word processor, or
browser under that OS and version?
I think a useful bit of feedback on PRI #299 would be to inquire
whether it is, in fact, a design goal to handle this use case of
transparency of
Huh? What kind of a deliberate design goal
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Leo Broukhis l...@mailcom.com wrote:
Most platforms display unknown printable characters as white
rectangles with hex digits in them.
In Doug's message, I saw a rectangle with 01F in the upper row, and
3F3 in the lower row.
This is a handy feature, at least
On 7/6/2015 8:18 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
Most platforms display unknown printable characters as white
rectangles with hex digits in them.
In Doug's message, I saw a rectangle with 01F in the upper row, and
3F3 in the lower row.
This is a handy
with stylized letters would be sufficient to read the intent of
the writer, and, as a free extra, to tell apart Liechtenstein and
Haiti without squinting.
I think a useful bit of feedback on PRI #299 would be to inquire whether
it is, in fact, a design goal to handle this use case of transparency
bit of feedback on PRI #299 would be to inquire whether
it is, in fact, a design goal to handle this use case of transparency of
the individual letters on platforms, rendering engines, and/or fonts
that don't support flag-tag composition. (Please, not
non-vexillology-aware. None of these platforms
not resembling a flag, but
indicative of the intention to display a flag, like RIS can be, as
opposed to nondescript white flags.
This is just a personal prediction, but I'd guess that once the PRI #299
mechanism hits the streets, U+1F3F3 WAVING WHITE FLAG will be used
overwhelmingly for tag sequences
On 7/3/2015 9:14 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Leo Broukhis leob at mailcom dot com wrote:
What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use default-
ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd like
to
Most platforms display unknown printable characters as white
rectangles with hex digits in them.
In Doug's message, I saw a rectangle with 01F in the upper row, and
3F3 in the lower row.
Moreover, on any platform when users see unknown characters, they
search for a font, install it and are able to
that once the
PRI #299 mechanism hits the streets, U+1F3F3 WAVING WHITE FLAG
will be used overwhelmingly for tag sequences and comparatively
seldom on its own. When a reader sees , it might be relatively
safe to assume the writer intended to display a specific flag
RIS can be, as
opposed to nondescript white flags.
This is just a personal prediction, but I'd guess that once the PRI #299
mechanism hits the streets, U+1F3F3 WAVING WHITE FLAG will be used
overwhelmingly for tag sequences and comparatively seldom on its own.
When a reader sees , it might
13 matches
Mail list logo
