rom: Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 2:21 AM
To: Peter Kirk
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Complex Combining
I think it would be simple to have invisible parentheses in that case,
and be able to apply the diacritic in the group:
invisible open
My take on Cleanicode, the Atomic Theory of Unicode, can be found at
http://www.doves.demon.co.uk/atomic.html. It is very much a software engineer's
view of character coding.
The characters START GROUP and POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING are used as
brackets. Yes, it could involve arbitrary
.
Jonathan Coxhead wrote,
...http://www.doves.demon.co.uk/atomic.html.
Quoting from the page,
... the longest word you can write upside-down in Unicode
is `aftereffect?).
In UTF-8:
zʎxʍʌnʇsɹbdouɯլʞſ̣ı̣ɥɓɟəpɔqɐ
Best regards,
James Kass
.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:11:55 -0800, Peter Kirk wrote:
This is all rather interesting speculation. There are surely a lot of
potential cases in scripts where some kind of combining mark can be
considered as applying to a sequence of an arbitrary number of
characters. For example:
]
Sent: Friday, November 28, 2003 9:57 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Complex Combining
Whenever I read threads like this one
(and they resurface
with monotonous regularity) I do wonder whether the
participants have ever read
TUS Section 2.2 Unicode Design
On 28/11/2003 01:57, Andrew C. West wrote:
...
These are all specialised cases that are strictly necessary in order to
represent the respective scripts. General text formatting such as underlining or
arbitrary encirclement of characters (or cartouchement of ideographs which is
common in
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:32:51 +, Arcane Jill wrote:
You are getting personal and indulging in ad hominem. I consider this
out of order.
Wow, people really are tetchy today.
The published Mail List Rules and Etiquette state that Correspondents should
remain tolerably polite and consider
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003, Peter Kirk wrote:
confirmed what I wrote. Some of my cases have already been encoded in
Unicode, and in just the way I suggested; others are considered (by the
UTC, or just by you?) as rich text. Like Jill, I see some possible
inconsistency. One point of this discussion
Peter Kirk writes:
On 28/11/2003 01:57, Andrew C. West wrote:
These are all specialised cases that are strictly necessary in order to
represent the respective scripts. General text formatting such
as underlining or
arbitrary encirclement of characters (or cartouchement of
ideographs which
Peter Kirk writes:
This is all rather interesting speculation.
Yes but it is not illegal to use these conventions as it is still Unicode
text.
It just happens that Unicode does not define precisely the semantic of such
composed text, using ZWJ as an unspecified ligature opportunity, but not
Arcane Jill writes:
I still like the invisible brackets idea. That would make the
precedence explicit. As in:
INVISIBLE_LEFT_BRACKET + 9 + 2 + INVISIBLE_RIGHT_BRACKET +
COMBINING_ENCLOSING_CIRCLE
I also like it. As I said, they should be given the property of punctuation,
like parentheses.
-Message d'origine-
De :Philippe Verdy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoye :jeudi 27 novembre 2003 23:29
A : Arcane Jill
Cc :[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : RE: Complex Combining
Arcane Jill writes:
I still like the invisible brackets idea. That would make the
precedence
12 matches
Mail list logo
