On 05/01/2004 15:29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Somebody probably needs to go to Baku to dig out actual printed
materials from the 20's and 30's to make an assessment of actual
usage.
I did have a dictionary in this orthography, from about 1929, but
unfortunately I left it in Baku. I expect
On 05/01/2004 15:47, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 05/01/2004 15:29, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
...
Somebody probably needs to go to Baku to dig out actual printed
materials from the 20's and 30's to make an assessment of actual
usage.
I did have a dictionary in this orthography, from about 1929, but
un
> >Not a good idea: the Nogai and Khakass languages appear to have used both
> >gha/oi and "i with lower right hook" according to
> >http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/nogai/nogailatin.htm and
> >http://www.writingsystems.net/languages/khakass/khakasslatin.htm .
> >
> >Charles Cox
> >
> >
>
On 04/01/2004 15:48, Charles Cox wrote:
Philippe Verdy wrote:
I maintain that if you remove the glyph shown for latin letter oi
(considered only as informative and not mandatory in any of its aspects),
and just keep its normative name, then many people will think that the
encoded character rea
> Not safe for what? I've come across six characters that
weren't in
> Unicode at all.
As a side note, for Everson, all of which I've reported to
this list before.
Then I'm puzzled as to the purpose of this proposed subset.
Right now, we accept Latin-1, because the guy who created it
didn'
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 03/01/2004 14:23, Peter Kirk wrote:
> > On 03/01/2004 13:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >
> >> We can't say from the exhibited uppercase alphabet that this should be
a
> >> mirrored dotless j or a mirrored soft-dotted j if it is converted to
> >> lowercase.
At 23:40 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
> >classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
>
That isn't true.
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
> >classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
>
> That isn't true. The letter "v" is a vowel in Cherokee, a conson
on 2004-01-03 14:40 Philippe Verdy wrote:
I have never
seen you accepting compromizes and I doubt of your negociation faculties.
A lot can be said about Michael, but it is inaccurate to say that he
never changes his mind. One of the things that I have come to value over
the years in his "pronounc
On 03/01/2004 14:23, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/01/2004 13:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
We can't say from the exhibited uppercase alphabet that this should be a
mirrored dotless j or a mirrored soft-dotted j if it is converted to
lowercase. So Peter, where did you find this image of an alphabet?
At 00:00 +0100 2004-01-04, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
>classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
That isn't true. The l
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> >Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
> >classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
>
> That isn't true. The letter "v" is a vowel in Cherokee, a conson
At 23:23 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The glyphs are not normative.
But if you want to insist more with your position, why not simply dropping
completely all glyphs from the Unicode standard?
Because they are informative.
--
Michael Everson
On 03/01/2004 13:37, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
We can't say from the exhibited uppercase alphabet that this should be a
mirrored dotless j or a mirrored soft-dotted j if it is converted to
lowercase. So Peter, where did you find this image of an alphabet?
It's not a mirrored J, and I found it
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The glyphs are not normative.
I thought that you were exactly promoting the reverse. That's why I wanted
to moderate things about glyphs. But Unicode still states that they are
"representative", and it publishes them as they are necessary for correct
i
At 22:37 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote:
Note that a fundamental property of character identity is its most common
classification as a vowel, consonnant, or semi-vowel.
That isn't true. The letter "v" is a vowel in Cherokee, a consonant
in Czech, and (often) a semivowel in Danish.
Please
At 21:50 +0100 2004-01-03, Philippe Verdy wrote privately to me:
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe said:
>
>In Unicode, the glyphs are normative in a way that they allow
>character identification, but they are not mandatory, so they are
>mostly informative.
This is not t
From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > At 09:03 -0800 2004-01-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
>
> > >But in the light of naming errors like this one implementers should
> > >be advised not to use character names, because they are not reliably
>
At 11:15 -0800 2004-01-03, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
It makes me wish we had a CouldaWouldaShoulda_CharacterName property that
contains what the name ought to be, and we document this as one that *will*
change any time there is a mistake made in the original character name. We
just make a n
Philippe said:
In Unicode, the glyphs are normative in a way that they allow
character identification, but they are not mandatory, so they are
mostly informative.
This is not true, Philippe. In fact, it is so dreadfully and
misleadingly untrue that all I can suggest is that you go back to
page
From: "Michael Everson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:03 -0800 2004-01-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >But in the light of naming errors like this one implementers should
> >be advised not to use character names, because they are not reliably
> >helpful.
>
> I wouldn't say that. It would better to advise
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The representative glyph for this character seems to be good. But, given
> that the name is so misleading but cannot be changed, it is good that
> there is a note "= gha" in the Unicode character charts.
>
> But in the light of naming errors like this one im
At 09:03 -0800 2004-01-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
In fact it should be considered a variant of g.
Or q.
The representative glyph for this character seems to be good.
It is. We went to a lot of trouble getting it that way too.
But, given that the name is so misleading but cannot be changed, it
is goo
D. Starner posted:
Not safe for what? I've come across six characters that weren't in
Unicode at all. Does this mean that Unicode isn't safe to use?
Not safe to *assume* that because a character appears in the pan-Turkic
alphabet and is not known to you (or me) from other earlier
orthographies,
On 03/01/2004 07:20, Philippe Verdy wrote:
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This letter looks nothing like U+01A3, which is also visible in the
bottom line of the attachment.
You exhibit a glyph that ressembles to the two ligated digits "01", where
the second goes below the baseline.
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> This letter looks nothing like U+01A3, which is also visible in the
> bottom line of the attachment.
You exhibit a glyph that ressembles to the two ligated digits "01", where
the second goes below the baseline. This type of glyph variant is well known
in so
On 02/01/2004 18:59, Philippe Verdy wrote:
...
U+0259 É
i.e. LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA
Yes
U+01A3 Æ
i.e. LATIN SMALL LETTER OI
Yes, except that it isn't an OI at all, whoever gave it this name was
ignorant of the character and went merely on the shape.
?? dotless i with a
At 16:56 -0800 2004-01-02, D. Starner wrote:
> Not safe unless you *know* exactly when a character was invented.
Not safe for what? I've come across six characters that weren't in
Unicode at all.
What are they?
You assumption wasn't safe given your question.
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typog
At 16:42 -0800 2004-01-02, D. Starner wrote:
> > Can I assume that both the Pan-Turkic
>Latin orthography and the Pan-Nigerian alphabet postdate that?
No, you can't make assumptions like that.
Yes, I can. And I will if I have to.
Your question was an historical one.
--
Michael Everson * * Evers
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "D. Starner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: Pre-1923 characters?
> Not safe unless you *know* exactly when a character was invented.
Not safe for what? I've come across six characters that weren't in
Unicode at all. Does this mean that Unicode isn't safe to use?
> Characters adopted into new standardized new Latin-based alphabets or
> new standardized Latin-b
On 02/01/2004 15:22, John Hudson wrote:
At 12:19 PM 1/2/2004, D. Starner wrote:
Can I assume that both the Pan-Turkic
Latin orthography and the Pan-Nigerian alphabet postdate that?
The Pan-Turkic Latin orthography developed out of the modern Turkish
orthography and Latin alphabets in use in th
> > Can I assume that both the Pan-Turkic
> >Latin orthography and the Pan-Nigerian alphabet postdate that?
>
> No, you can't make assumptions like that.
Yes, I can. And I will if I have to. Our current system uses a panel
with 96 characters, Latin-1. I'm trying to replace that with a series
of
Peter Kirk wrote
You are probably safe with the Pan-Turkic Latin alphabet. It seems that
this was adopted followng the First Turkology Congress, held in Baku in
1926, see
http://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/81_folder/81_articles/81_turkology_congress.html.
Not safe unless you *know* e
At 14:54 -0800 2004-01-02, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 02/01/2004 12:19, D. Starner wrote:
I'm working with Distributed Proofreaders to produce some minimal
Unicode character selectors. Right now I'm working on the Latin
character selectors. Since we soley provide material for Project
Gutenberg, we usual
At 12:19 PM 1/2/2004, D. Starner wrote:
Can I assume that both the Pan-Turkic
Latin orthography and the Pan-Nigerian alphabet postdate that?
The Pan-Turkic Latin orthography developed out of the modern Turkish
orthography and Latin alphabets in use in the Soviet Turkic republics in
the 1920s. Mo
On 02/01/2004 12:19, D. Starner wrote:
I'm working with Distributed Proofreaders to produce some minimal
Unicode character selectors. Right now I'm working on the Latin
character selectors. Since we soley provide material for Project
Gutenberg, we usually only deal with characters pre-1923. After
At 12:19 -0800 2004-01-02, D. Starner wrote:
I'm working with Distributed Proofreaders to produce some minimal
Unicode character selectors. Right now I'm working on the Latin
character selectors. Since we soley provide material for Project
Gutenberg, we usually only deal with characters pre-1923. A
I'm working with Distributed Proofreaders to produce some minimal
Unicode character selectors. Right now I'm working on the Latin
character selectors. Since we soley provide material for Project
Gutenberg, we usually only deal with characters pre-1923. After
stripping composable accents, which cha
39 matches
Mail list logo
