>What do you plan to propose for phonetic modifier letters "a",
>"o" and "i":
>
>1) Will you propose three new code points?
>
>2) will you propose to unify them with U+00AA, U00BA and U+2071?
If I were to propose new code points, the only differences might be between
Ll and Lm, and that 00AA and
Peter Constable wrote:
> >The point is that encodings currently used for French have
> none of these.
>
> Well, then, just do what the French do: don't use any of
> them, even though you may be tempted to use some.
> [...]
> >The ideal for me, rather than adding the missing "e" and
> "i", woul
Antoine Leca shcrissi (Sicilian, this time):
> Marco Cimarosti écrivit (!):
> That is true. It is as true as the fact that when we French
> are to write the oe digraph, we *type* it as two separate
> letters, for lack of better solutions.
The two issues are quite different.
- The lack of French
At 18:43 -0700 2001-06-11, Rick McGowan wrote:
>Everson wrote:
>
>> Lots of people with names like McGowan like to have the "c",
>> ostensibly an abbreviation for "ac" superscripted and underlined. ;-)
>
>(Sound of wretching...)
You mean "Ack!"?
>Uh, no. I like it just fine as-is. If I
>actu
Everson wrote:
> Lots of people with names like McGowan like to have the "c",
> ostensibly an abbreviation for "ac" superscripted and underlined. ;-)
(Sound of wretching...) Uh, no. I like it just fine as-is. If I
actually spelled my name with a small superscripted underlined "c", even
mo
>The point is that encodings currently used for French have none of these.
Well, then, just do what the French do: don't use any of them, even though
you may be tempted to use some.
>The ideal for me, rather than adding the missing "e" and "i", would be to
>delete the existing "a" and "o".
So
> So my question is: is the superscript attribute essential in French to
> understand these abbreviations (as it is in Italian), or is
> it desirable but
> optional (as it is in English)?
Not to understand them. While understanding is subjective, it is usually
evident from the context that these
At 13:14 -0500 2001-06-11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I'm not in a position to argue for or against these kinds of things in
>plain text for Italian, French, etc. where the orthographies clearly do not
>include superscripts as separate graphemes but rather these are notational
>devices that supple
Marco Cimarosti écrivit (!):
>
> The second point regarding French is that, AFAIK, these abbreviations are
> also written with normal (non superscript) letters, as you have written them
> in your mail.
That is true. It is as true as the fact that when we French are to write
the oe digraph, we *t
On 06/11/2001 10:49:54 AM Antoine Leca wrote:
>So you should consider also "m", "r", "s", "t", "è" (U+00E0) and "é"
(U+00E1).
>
>Looks like a bit too much to me.
I'm not in a position to argue for or against these kinds of things in
plain text for Italian, French, etc. where the orthographies c
Antoine Leca l'ha scrivùu:
> Marco Cimarosti va escriure:
> > I am considering to file in a proposal for two new
> characters, to be used in
> > Italian ordinal numbers abbreviations.
> [...]
> Here they are...
> [...]
> Well, the same phenomena occurs in several Romance (or
> perhaps European)
[iso-8859-1]
Hi,
Marco Cimarosti va escriure:
>
> I am considering to file in a proposal for two new characters, to be used in
> Italian ordinal numbers abbreviations.
>
> Before I do this, I would like to read some opinions.
Here they are...
>
>
Well, the same phenomena occurs in seve
Marco,
> John Cowan wrote:
> > Where did you get information on the UnicodeData of 3.2 characters?
> > I don't doubt your word, but I can't find any such information on the
> > site.
>
> Ooops...
>
> This file shows glyph, name, and decomposition:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/charts/dr
John Cowan wrote:
> Where did you get information on the UnicodeData of 3.2 characters?
> I don't doubt your word, but I can't find any such information on the
> site.
Ooops...
This file shows glyph, name, and decomposition:
http://www.unicode.org/charts/draftunicode32/U32-2070.pdf
John Cowan wrote:
> "Modifier letter" is a rather loosely defined category: what's in it
> is kind of random.
You are right. A quick browse in UnicodeData.txt shows that the category
includes members such as Arabic tatweel or CJK iteration marks.
Nevertheless, at least in the Latin (IPA), Greek,
> >4) Unify the masculine indicator with Unicode 3.2's U+2071
> "SUPERSCRIPT
> >LATIN SMALL LETTER I" and only propose the feminine indicator
> (tentatively:
> >*U+2072 "SUPERSCRIPT LATIN SMALL LETTER E").
>
> Yes, I'd do that. In fact, I've been pondering the merits of
> proposing a number of
Peter Constable wrote:
> On 06/04/2001 06:54:40 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> One might argue that, in this situation, it's still legible:
> i 3i italiani / le 3e italiane.
No, these forms would never be recognized as "terzi" or "terze" in Italian.
The superscript property is not optional as with
On 06/04/2001 01:28:28 PM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>I am proposing two *compatibility* characters in order to maintain a
certain
>font difference in *plain* text. But, if I am in plain text, I cannot turn
>on or off "font features" for portions of text.
But the feature is only to turn the underli
On 06/04/2001 06:54:40 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
I find this interesting because of some similar issues in relation to
phonetic / phonemic transcription.
>I can see are at least 4 approaches to solve this problem, 3 of which
>require to file in a proposal:
>
>1) Apply the "superscript" font pr
19 matches
Mail list logo
