Title: RE: Precomposed Glyphs (was Re: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign )
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrew C. West
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 10:45:53 +0100, Peter Kirk wrote:
If there were such a list, font designers could indeed design
precomposed
At 12:13 -0700 2004-09-22, James Kass wrote:
What use is a combining enclosing circle which doesn't combine and enclose?
The character is an interchangeable data unit. It combines and
encloses (nicely at least) only if a font designer has drawn a
precomposed glyph for it and its enclosed. And
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Antoine asked:
On Tuesday, September 21st, 2004 18:50 Kenneth Whistler va escriure:
With this change in place, it seems to me that the case is
quite clear *for* separate encoding of any circled Arabic
letter used as a symbol. If the sequence 062D, 20DD were
used,
Title: RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 2:49 PM
At 12:13 -0700 2004-09-22, James Kass wrote:
What use is a combining enclosing circle which doesn't
combine
Mike Ayers wrote responding to Michael Everson,
The character is an interchangeable data unit. It combines
and encloses (nicely at least) only if a font designer has
drawn a precomposed glyph for it and its enclosed.
...and has mapped that glyph to the proper sequence.
...and
James Kass wrote:
But, I'm still curious about COMBINING ENCLOSING CIRCLE. As it
stands, users can generate plain text ordered lists and so forth
using encircled letters and digits, as long as they are using Latin,
Hangul, or Katakana. But, they can't if they are users of other
scripts like
Jrg Knappen knappen at uni dash mainz dot de wrote:
I see a precedent in Unicode to treat Copyright-like sign differently
from simple encircled letters:
Unicode takes precautions not to encode the same character twice.
Therefore, superscript digits 2 and 3 are absent from the superscript
On 2004.09.19, 21:37, Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any precedent in Unicode for saying, of a symbol or
character known to some user community, that it should be encoded
using some combination involving U+20DD? I don't mean a formal
Technical Report or anything, just a
On 20/09/2004 19:21, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
PS for named sequences:
See: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr34
Draft Data:
http://www.unicode.org/Public/4.1-Update/NamedCompositeEntities-4.1.0d4.txt
(the last part of the file name may change to NamedSequences*.txt).
The draft data is actually
Michael Everson schrieb:
At 13:07 -0700 2004-09-20, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
ARABIC HAH COPYRIGHT SIGN
* used in Saudi Arabia
or even:
CIRCLED ARABIC LETTER HAH
* a copyright sign used in Saudi Arabia
Both naming suggestions are fine with me. An aside: The arabic word for
right
At 10:55 PM 9/20/2004, Doug Ewell wrote:
Jörg Knappen knappen at uni dash mainz dot de wrote:
I see a precedent in Unicode to treat Copyright-like sign differently
from simple encircled letters:
Unicode takes precautions not to encode the same character twice.
Therefore, superscript digits 2
At 03:58 AM 9/21/2004, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 20/09/2004 19:21, Asmus Freytag wrote:
...
PS for named sequences:
See: http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr34
Draft Data:
http://www.unicode.org/Public/4.1-Update/NamedCompositeEntities-4.1.0d4.txt
(the last part of the file name may change to
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Second, there is the question of cursive joining for Arabic.
I don't know anything in the Unicode Standard that states that
a combining enclosing mark breaks cursive ligation. It stands
to reason that it *should*, but I don't know anything that
requires it.
Well,
Kent wrote:
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Second, there is the question of cursive joining for Arabic.
I don't know anything in the Unicode Standard that states that
a combining enclosing mark breaks cursive ligation. It stands
to reason that it *should*, but I don't know anything that
Doug Ewell schrieb:
I'm not aware of any, but I see this U+20DD solution mentioned from time
to time, as though it were a well-known alternative to encoding things
like Warenzeichen or Gesch#tzte Sorte.
I see a precedent in Unicode to treat Copyright-like sign differently from
simple
At 06:09 PM 9/19/2004, D. Starner wrote:
Asmus Freytag writes:
Given
the nature of the symbol in question, I would personally see no reason to
object
to encoding it - especially given the current and projected lack of
availability
of other alternatives.
It's a simple combining character.
printed
from Saudi-Arabia in other languages than arabic, it would be interesting
if the SAUDI-ARABIAN COPYRIGHT SIGN occurs there, too.
There's no requirement that a character be used in multiple countries.
If Unicode is to be the *universal* character encoding standard, it must
cater to both local
, combining-circle as an AL strong R-to-L
character following by a combining mark, which will inherit
the directionality of its base. So the sequence will be set to
AL, AL for the purposes of bidirectional formatting.
The question for any potential proposal of a Saudi-Arabian
Copyright Sign
At 11:50 AM 9/20/2004, Eric Muller wrote:
But the real obstacle for a generative approach is QA: if as a font vendor
you want to ensure some level of quality, then it is hard to avoid human
work essentially proportional to the number of base+mark *combinations*
you claim to support. If you
Eric Muller writes:
it is hard to
avoid human work essentially proportional to the number of base+mark
*combinations* you claim to support. [...]
I have no problem with people taking those chances or deciding their
fonts are ok, or whatever. But I have a real problem if somebody else
Yemen, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordania, Egypt, Libya
and Morrocco).
Therefore I suggest the name SAUDI-ARABIAN COPYRIGHT SIGN for this one.
Since the block for letterlike symbols is already almost full, but there
are gaps in the primary arabic block (U+0600-FF), it is IMO well placed
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
GESCHUETZE
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity,
just like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING
COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
All of which were in existing standards, so
Jrg Knappen wrote:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or
At 19:12 +0100 2004-09-19, Jon Hanna wrote:
For a sample, see http://www.uni-mainz.de/~knappen/saudi.gif
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity,
just like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING
COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
All
Jorg Knappen writes:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an
At 11:37 AM 9/19/2004, D. Starner wrote:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Saudi-Arabian Copyright sign
Jorg Knappen writes:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004, Jon Hanna wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just like its
precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN
D. Starner shalesller at writeme dot com wrote:
Looks like {U+062D, U+20DD}
Yes, it does look like that. But it forms a separate entity, just
like its precedents COPYRIGHT SIGN or SOUND RECORDING COPYRIGHT SIGN
or REGISTERED.
And why aren't those precedents wrong? There's an endless stream
At 12:11 -0700 2004-09-19, Asmus Freytag wrote:
As it stands, I continue to have strong doubts on the feasibility of
relying on character sequences for any document that's going to be
interchanged - so it's either adding a character or using images for
realistic applications. Given the nature
Asmus Freytag writes:
Given
the nature of the symbol in question, I would personally see no reason to
object
to encoding it - especially given the current and projected lack of
availability
of other alternatives.
It's a simple combining character. Even if you can't do arbitrary
31 matches
Mail list logo
