Philippe Verdy posted:
Without such use, let some freedom to scholars, as their mutual
agreements (and the fact that they are the only authorities for that
language) is perfectly valid (Unicode prohibitions should only concern
the case where it creates interoperability problems, but PUA will cause
Philippe Verdy wrote...
> Sorry, may be I was chosing the wrong diacritic (I was confused by its name,
> and I should have verified in the charts).
> Isn't U+0316 "COMBINING HORN" (combining class 216) what I wanted to use?
If you mean Combining Horn that is U+031B. Combining horn *does* attach
From: "John Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 06:39 AM 6/3/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >"Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/03/2003 07:25:46 AM:
> >
> > > How do you consider the existing "hook" diacritic ?
> >
> >If you're talking about U+0309 COMBINING HOOK ABOVE, I don't thin
From: "Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sorry, may be I was chosing the wrong diacritic (I was
> > confused by its name, and I should have verified in the charts).
> > Isn't U+0316 "COMBINING HORN" (combining class 216) what I
> > wanted to use?
>
> Let me cut my reply short: no.
>
> ...
At 06:39 AM 6/3/2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/03/2003 07:25:46 AM:
> How do you consider the existing "hook" diacritic ?
If you're talking about U+0309 COMBINING HOOK ABOVE, I don't think it
normally attaches. In fact, it's combining class is 230
> Sorry, may be I was chosing the wrong diacritic (I was
> confused by its name, and I should have verified in the charts).
> Isn't U+0316 "COMBINING HORN" (combining class 216) what I
> wanted to use?
Let me cut my reply short: no.
...
> script which already has a lot of them and creates
> d
with other decompositions) is still
language-specific and context dependant, as it obeys to a convention not to a strict
definition.
-- Philippe.
- Original Message -
From: "Kent Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Philippe Verdy'" <[EMAIL PROT
"Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/03/2003 07:25:46 AM:
> How do you consider the existing "hook" diacritic ?
If you're talking about U+0309 COMBINING HOOK ABOVE, I don't think it
normally attaches. In fact, it's combining class is 230 'above' and not 214
'above attached'.
> Att
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Philippe Verdy wrote on 05/30/2003 09:42:53 AM:
>
> > If this is not enough, may be we could create only a new diacritic
> > for the long leg attached on right
>
> I think it's a bad idea to encode combining marks that do not combine
> productively but are only used wi
.
Peter Constable wrote,
> > So, if they look at fonts such as, for example,
> > Code2000, Gentium and Junicode and observe which Private Use Area code
> > points are already in use within that font, then choose code points for
> the
> > rare extinct latin letters which code points are not used in
"William Overington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 06/02/2003
12:19:10 PM:
> They have a better chance of having a font to use if the
> characters are added into an existing font which already has many other
> characters in it
> So, if they look at fonts such as, for example,
> Code2000, Gentium
Doug Ewell posted on my suggestion of using IPA characters to encode
Shavian:
It's not a 1-to-1 match; Shavian includes letters for "affricatives,"
diphthongs, and other compound sounds.
The phonetic chart for Shavian at
http://www.unicode.org/pending/shavian/shavian.html indicates two
affrica
Peter Constable wrote as follows.
>William Overington wrote on 06/02/2003 01:06:25 AM:
>
>> I am wondering whether the range from U+F200 through to U+F2FF is being
>used
>> by anyone for anything.
>
>This is a nonsense question. It should never matter to person A whether
>others are using particul
Jim Allan wrote:
> Shavian, for example, might well have been encoded as an IPA cypher,
> simply by providing a cross-reference between Shavian character and
> Unicode IPA character.
It's not a 1-to-1 match; Shavian includes letters for "affricatives,"
diphthongs, and other compound sounds.
-Do
For odd and extinct characters or special alphabets, pending any actual
coding by Unicode, it might be more desireable to treat them as a
cyphers for the extended Latin alphabet rather than encoding them in the
PUA.
For example, if someone is using a character for the _ng_ sound in
_singer_ th
William Overington wrote on 06/02/2003 01:06:25 AM:
> I am wondering whether the range from U+F200 through to U+F2FF is being
used
> by anyone for anything.
This is a nonsense question. It should never matter to person A whether
others are using particular PUA codepoints *unless* person A needs
Philippe Verdy wrote on 05/30/2003 09:42:53 AM:
> If this is not enough, may be we could create only a new diacritic
> for the long leg attached on right
I think it's a bad idea to encode combining marks that do not combine
productively but are only used with a small set of base characters, and
"William Overington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am wondering whether the range from U+F200 through to
> U+F2FF is being used by anyone for anything.
By its very nature anyone can use PUA codepints for anything and
I'm sure by
now someone is already using those codepoints for something* -
and
Patrick Andries wrote as follows.
> [PA] I believe the need of an encoding may be pragmatically ascertained, I
don't known about the « real linguistic value » of an alphabet. I have, by
the way, no problem if someone says : « Sorry, too idiosyncratic and
excentric ! Use the private user area if yo
- Message d'origine -
De : "Philippe Verdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
> >
> > > Could letters like « l molle »
> > (http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
> > > ) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphab
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
>
> > Could letters like « l molle »
> (http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
> > ) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphabet http://pages.
> > infinit.net/hapax/abcbaif.jpg), letters which I believe cannot b
Patrick Andries on 05/29/2003 06:15:10 PM:
> Could letters like « l molle »
(http://pages.infinit.net/hapax/abcmeigret.jpg
> ) or long-tailed A (between O and P in Baïf's alphabet http://pages.
> infinit.net/hapax/abcbaif.jpg), letters which I believe cannot be
> composed from other existing Unic
Interesting sources here. Another proof that attempts to create a simplified
orthograph that "could" be read and written more simply is an old subject for
linguists.
So both sources attempt to create a L molle for the "ille" used in French like the
Dutch "ij" digraph. Baïf uses a cedilla under
23 matches
Mail list logo
