This subject seems to come periodically on French typographical lists, so I
would like to see what might be the answer of Unicode(unicore) to it.
What should be done with rare extinct latin letters which usually can't
easily be mapped to a single modern letter (i.e. they are not s
rs seem to segregate the usage of G and J (Baïf always uses a hook on the G,
and there's no "normal" G). And "superfluous" doubled consonants are removed in their
texts.
-
From: "Patrick Andries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This subject seems to come periodically
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
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
- 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
nner are increased.
I am wondering whether the range from U+F200 through to U+F2FF is being used
by anyone for anything. So perhaps, if you choose to encode the rare
extinct latin letters in the Private Use Area, if anyone who reads this
knows of whether U+F200 through to U+F2FF is being used by an
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 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
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
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
such as the basic latin alphabet and punctuation, so that
only the rare extinct latin letters represent special drawing work, rather
than the whole font. 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 us
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
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 the fonts at
> which they look, then the chances of getting
.
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 whi
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
"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
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
> 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
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
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.
>
> ...
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
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
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
"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
24 matches
Mail list logo
