-- Original Message --
From: "via Unicode"
To: wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Sent: Saturday, 2020 Feb 15 At 10:11
Subject: Re: What should or should not be encoded in Unicode? (from Re:
Egyptian Hieroglyph Man with a Laptop)
Hi William,
I don't fully und
Hi William,
I don't fully understand your proposed encoding scheme (e.g., Is there a
namespace each encoding scheme is bound to? How do namespaces get
encoded? How are syntax strictures encoded?), but even then, presuming
it's sound, you've said in the message before that this encoding space
The solution is to invent my own encoding space. This sits on top of
Unicode, could be (perhaps?) called markup, but it works!
It may be perilous, because some software may enforce the strict
official code point limits.
I have now realized that what I wrote before is ambiguous.
When I wrote
> On 13 Feb 2020, at 16:41, wjgo_10...@btinternet.com via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> Yet a Private Use Area encoding at a particular code point is not unique.
> Thus, except with care amongst people who are aware of the particular
> encoding, there is no interoperability, such as with regular Unico
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:15:18PM +, Richard Wordingham via Unicode wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:15:07 +
> Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote:
>
> > I confess that even though I know nothing about Hieroglyphs, that I
> > find it fascinating that such a thoroughly dead script might still b
That glyph is coded on position U+1F5B3 OLD PERSONAL COMPUTER, see
http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/Aegyptus.pdf
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2020 um 07:58 Uhr
Von: "うみほたる via Unicode"
An: unicode@unicode.org
Betreff: RE: Egyptian Hieroglyph Man with a Laptop
The early versi
Strange, has several meanings, not all positive. Perhaps the term
outlier is less ambiguous. One definition is unfamiliar, some outliers
over time become widespread in use, become famliar we no longer consider
them strange, but as they are still different are still outliers. CJK is
a living
Well, no, in this case "strange" means strange, as Ken Lunde notes. I'm
just pointing to his list, because it pulls together quite a few Han
characters that *also* have dubious cases for encoding.
Or you could turn the argument around, I suppose, and note that just
because the hieroglyph for "
Dear Ken
An interesting comparison, if strange means dubious, then the name
kstrange should be changed or some of the content removed because many
of the characters in the set are not dubious in the least.
Regards
John
On 2020-02-14 04:08, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
You want "dubious"?
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:15:07 +
Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote:
> I confess that even though I know nothing about Hieroglyphs, that I
> find it fascinating that such a thoroughly dead script might still be
> living in some way, even if it's only a little bit.
Plenty of people have learnt how
On 2/12/2020 3:26 PM, Shawn Steele via
Unicode wrote:
From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used brie
al Message-
From: Unicode On Behalf Of Ken Whistler via
Unicode
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Phake Nick
Cc: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: Re: Egyptian Hieroglyph Man with a Laptop
You want "dubious"?!
You should see the hundreds of strange characters already encoded in
You want "dubious"?!
You should see the hundreds of strange characters already encoded in the
CJK *Unified* Ideographs blocks, as recently documented in great detail
by Ken Lunde:
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20059-unihan-kstrange-update.pdf
Compared to many of those, a hieroglyph of a m
Those characters could also be put into another block for the same script
similar to how dubious characters in CJK are included by placing them into
"CJK Compatibility Ideographs" for round trip compatibility with source
encoding.
在 2020年2月14日週五 03:35，Richard Wordingham via Unicode
寫道：
> On Thu,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:18:40 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2020, at 00:26, Shawn Steele
> > wrote:
> >> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character
> >> is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
> >
> > That bar, to me, seems too low
Hans Åberg >>> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the
character is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
Shawn Steele >> That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only
used briefly or in a private context that doesn';t really require
encoding.
Hans Å
Le 12/02/2020 à 23:30, Michel Suignard a écrit :
Interesting that a single character is creating so much feedback, but
it is not the first time.
Extrapolating from my own case, I guess it’s because hieroglyphs have a
strong cultural significance — especially to people following unicode
enco
> On 13 Feb 2020, at 00:26, Shawn Steele wrote:
>
>> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use
>> or have had use, it should be included somehow.
>
> That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used briefly or in a
> private context that doesn't r
> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use
> or have had use, it should be included somehow.
That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used briefly or in a
private context that doesn't really require encoding.
The hieroglyphs discussion is interes
> On 12 Feb 2020, at 23:30, Michel Suignard via Unicode
> wrote:
>
> These abstract collections have started to appear in the first part of the
> nineteen century (Champollion starting in 1822). Interestingly these
> collections have started to be useful on their own even if in some case the
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 12:04 PM
To: Marius Spix ; Unicode
Cc: Michel Suignard
Subject: Re: Egyptian Hieroglyph Man with a Laptop
Le 12/02/2020 à 20:38, Marius Spix a écrit :
> That is a pretty interesting finding. This glyph was not part of
> http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18165
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:37 AM Marius Spix via Unicode <
unicode@unicode.org> wrote:
> In my opinion, this is an invalid character, which should not be
> included in Unicode.
>
Please remember that feedback that you want the committee to look at needs
to go through http://www.unicode.org/report
I assume this glyph was created to honor Cleo Huggins, the designer of
Sonata at Adobe, who decades ago created a similar hieroglyph of a
*woman* in front of her computer.
Joe
Le 12/02/2020 à 20:38, Marius Spix a écrit :
That is a pretty interesting finding. This glyph was not part of
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18165-n4944-hieroglyphs.pdf
It is, as *U+1355A EGYPTIAN HIEROGLYPH A-12-051
but has been first seen in
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19220-n5063-hie
That is a pretty interesting finding. This glyph was not part of
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2018/18165-n4944-hieroglyphs.pdf
but has been first seen in
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19220-n5063-hieroglyphs.pdf
The only "evidence" for this glyph I could find, is a stock photo,
which is clearly ma
25 matches
Mail list logo
