On 02/26/2001 11:06:55 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> As I indicated above, I think that there is a non-vacuous notion that
>> merits a specific term for the purposes of discussion, and that that
notion
>> is the one I have been assuming up to now.
>
>And that is (abstract character)1, as I clari
it doesn't matter.
That's not the kind of definition we need if we are to avoid confusion.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 12:10
Subject: Re: An Aburdly Brief I
Peter said:
> As I indicated above, I think that there is a non-vacuous notion that
> merits a specific term for the purposes of discussion, and that that notion
> is the one I have been assuming up to now.
And that is (abstract character)1, as I clarified earlier. I agree with
you, Peter, that
>As Ken says, we have let sleeping dogs lie as far as deviating from the
>formal definition used by 10646; however, if this is causing people to
>misinterpret the standard we should work with WG2 to come up with a
useful,
>valid definition.
>
>Mark
>
>- Original Message -
>As Ken says, we have let sleeping dogs lie as far as deviating from the
>formal definition used by 10646; however, if this is causing people to
>misinterpret the standard we should work with WG2 to come up with a
useful,
>valid definition.
>
>Mark
>
>- Original Message -
the standard we should work with WG2 to come up with a useful,
valid definition.
Mark
- Original Message -
From: "Kenneth Whistler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Se
On 02/23/2001 05:06:03 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>Peter expostulated:
OK. I have no problem with Ken's response, since he made clear what he was
talking about. This was not the case in the earlier messages to which I was
responding.
I have one minor quibble and a comment, for neither of which
Peter expostulated:
> I think Mark is either temporarily off his game, or else he's obfuscating
> terminology. "Abstract character" is defined in definition D3 on p. 40 of
> TUS3.0. The relationship between abstract characters and codepoints is
> defined in UTR17: "An abstract character is define
On 02/23/2001 01:28:07 PM Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> - one abstract character can correspond to two different code points
>
>{a with ring above} ==> U+00C5 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER WITH RING ABOVE
>==> U+212B ANGSTROM SIGN (singleton canonical
equivalence
>
On 02/23/2001 10:34:05 AM "Mark Davis" wrote:
>In somewhat more detail:
>
>In general, a single abstract character corresponds to a single code
point.
>However, due to the requirement of compatibility with legacy code sets,
plus
>some inherent fuzziness in what constitutes abstract characters, t
On 02/23/2001 09:58:55 AM John Cowan wrote:
>Mark Davis wrote:
>
>>> A _code_point_ is an integer value which is assigned to an abstract
>>> character. Each character receives a unique code point.
>>
>>
>> inaccurate. Multiple *abstract characters* can have a single code point;
>> multiple code
Mark said:
> In somewhat more detail:
>
> In general, a single abstract character corresponds to a single code point.
> However, due to the requirement of compatibility with legacy code sets, plus
> some inherent fuzziness in what constitutes abstract characters, there are
> cases where this is
Message -
From: "John Cowan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 08:21
Subject: Re: An Aburdly Brief Introduction to Unicode (was Re: Perception
...)
> Mark
Mark Davis wrote:
>> A _code_point_ is an integer value which is assigned to an abstract
>> character. Each character receives a unique code point.
>
>
> inaccurate. Multiple *abstract characters* can have a single code point;
> multiple code points can correspond to a single *abstract charact
many comments
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Lord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 21:15
Subject: An Aburdly Brief Introduction to Unicode (was Re: Perception ...)
>
> We've seen several posts about the perception that Unico
Paul Keinanen wrote:
> Regarding how to describe Unicode in the public, I think it is best to
> say that it can encode more than a million characters, of which about
> 10 (in 3.1) is used. It is better to defer the discussion of any
> transformation forms to a much later stage.
I don't agree.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:51:31 -0800 (GMT-0800), Markus Scherer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tom Lord wrote:
>> Two code points represent non-characters. These are U+FFFE and
>> U+. Programs are free to give these values special meaning
>> internally.
>
>Unicode (2.0 and up?) has 34 non-characte
Tom Lord wrote:
> Two code points represent non-characters. These are U+FFFE and
> U+. Programs are free to give these values special meaning
> internally.
Unicode (2.0 and up?) has 34 non-characters at U+xxFFFE and U+xx where xx is 00,
01, .., 0F, 10.
Unicode 3.1 is adding another 32 no
On 02/21/2001 11:15:45 PM Tom Lord wrote:
> Absurdly Brief Introduction to Unicode
[snip]
>Some Special Code Points
[snip]
>Two code points represent non-characters. These are U+FFFE and
>U+. Programs are free to give these values special meaning
>internally.
There a
19 matches
Mail list logo
