On Sun, 17 Nov 2002, Doug Ewell wrote:
John Jenkins was referring to the preference of Japanese speakers for
reading Chinese-language text in Japanese-style glyphs. Perhaps an
appropriate language tag for this scenario might be zh-JP, meaning
Chinese as used in Japan. Even then, the
At 06:50 PM 11/18/2002, Adam Twardoch wrote:
Do you think it would make sense (or maybe this probposal has already been
filed) to introduce tagging for OpenType layout features into Unicode? So
far, no tagging for OTL tags exists.
Is this some obscure form of Polish humour with which I was
On 11/17/2002 10:18:58 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
What about the other applications for language tagging mentioned in RFC
3066 and in my Plane 14 paper, like spelling and grammar checking and
speech synthesis? Should these be available only for fancy text?
One could use this line of argumentation to
Hi.
A good example is the production of multilingual
manuals, which seem to be more and more common these days.
This is indeed a very good example.
I agree that in this example, higher-level markup would do
all that is necessary.
But I'd like to read a README.TXT with a plain-text editor.
Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
A good example is the production of multilingual
manuals, which seem to be more and more common these days.
This is indeed a very good example.
... of something which is not very appropriate for plain text.
I agree that in this example, higher-level markup would
At 11:50 AM 11/18/02 +0100, Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
I agree that in this example, higher-level markup would do
all that is necessary.
But I'd like to read a README.TXT with a plain-text editor.
These files are very common - and if they're not deprecated
using plane-14-tags would be very nice
As a result of being monofont plain text viewers/editors are also notorious
for not supporting much beyond a limited repertoire of characters [a few
noble exceptions to this rule notwithstanding].
Unless a widely used plain-text protocol requires or supports these
characters, they remain
James Kass said:
How do these differences apply to Unicode plain text and the
Plane 14 tags? For example, it was noted that the ideographic full
stop is centered in Chinese text but sits on the baseline (and isn't
centered) in Japanese text.
This claim about ideographic periods is untrue.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:37:36PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
But a German newspaper of the 1930s might have needed an English
language tag to
At 13:37 -0800 2002-11-18, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Go to any Japanese newspaper. There is no required change of
typographic style when Chinese names and placenames are mentioned
in the context of Japanese articles about China.
Go to any Chinese newspaper. There is no required change of
David Starner scripsit:
But a German newspaper of the 1930s might have needed an English
language tag to write Kenneth Whistler, and certainly would have need
one to quote someone in English or French.
No, it would have needed an Antiqua font tag, and it would have
used the same tag on some
At 18:03 -0500 2002-11-18, John Cowan wrote:
David Starner scripsit:
But a German newspaper of the 1930s might have needed an English
language tag to write Kenneth Whistler, and certainly would have need
one to quote someone in English or French.
No, it would have needed an Antiqua font
At 16:23 -0600 2002-11-18, David Starner wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:37:36PM -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
But a German newspaper of the
Michael Everson scripsit:
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
No, but it might requires an editor clever enough to write Schröder. :-)
It will get mangled if he does: most
- Original Message -
From: John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: The result of the Plane 14 tag characters review
No, it would have needed an Antiqua font tag, and it would have
used
At 18:25 -0500 2002-11-18, John Cowan wrote:
Michael Everson scripsit:
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
No, but it might requires an editor clever enough to write Schröder. :-)
Michael Everson asked:
At 13:37 -0800 2002-11-18, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Go to any Japanese newspaper. There is no required change of
typographic style when Chinese names and placenames are mentioned
in the context of Japanese articles about China.
Go to any Chinese newspaper. There is
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
At 13:37 -0800 2002-11-18, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Go to any Japanese newspaper. There is no required change of
typographic style when Chinese names and placenames are mentioned
in the context of Japanese articles about China.
Go to any Chinese
These is completely comparable to the fact that my local
English-language newspaper doesn't need a German language tag
to write Gerhard Schroeder.
How about a multilingual newspaper?
What of a multilingual newspaper?
Take a hypothetical instance of a German/English newspaper,
which
Do you think it would make sense (or maybe this probposal has already been
filed) to introduce tagging for OpenType layout features into Unicode? So
far, no tagging for OTL tags exists.
Adam
Recently on the OpenType list, a question was asked about handling
the differences between certain CJK punctuation within a single
font for correctly displaying horizontal Japanese and Chinese text
in the same file.
John Hudson offered a solution for this issue.
How do these differences apply
At 08:49 -0700 2002-11-14, John H. Jenkins wrote:
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 12:07 AM, George W Gerrity wrote:
In an effort to unify all character and pictographs, the decision
was made to unify CJK characters by suppressing most variant forms.
That turns out to be the single
At 23:28 -0800 2002-11-13, Doug Ewell wrote:
George W Gerrity ggerrity at dragnet dot com dot au wrote:
The problems occur first, because the code scanner can no longer be
stateless; second, because one needs to provide an over-ride to
higher-level layout engines; third, because it can't
George W Gerrity ggerrity at dragnet dot com dot au wrote:
The first objection is, and always has been, a non-issue, and is the
only aspect of the problem that the Plane 14 tags could hope to deal
with. The issue is not a language one, but a locale one, to begin
with.
Yes, although
George W Gerrity ggerrity at dragnet dot com dot au wrote:
SC and TC characters are completely non-unified, unless you want to
count the few that are the simplified forms of some character and
also the traditional form of some other character.
That is exactly one point as to why there is no
George W Gerrity ggerrity at dragnet dot com dot au wrote:
The problems occur first, because the code scanner can no longer be
stateless; second, because one needs to provide an over-ride to
higher-level layout engines; third, because it can't solve problems
where multiple glyphs exist, whose
George W Gerrity scripsit:
The problems occur first, because the code scanner can no longer be
stateless;
It can't anyway for all the complex scripts (CJKV is not really complex,
just large).
second, because one needs to provide an over-ride to
higher-level layout engines;
third, because
On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 12:07 AM, George W Gerrity wrote:
In an effort to unify all character and pictographs, the decision was
made to unify CJK characters by suppressing most variant forms. That
turns out to be the single greatest objection from users -- especially
Japanese --
Kenneth Whistler wrote:
Ahem...
The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce that no
formal decision has been taken regarding the deprecation of
Plane 14 language tag characters. The period for public review of
this issue will be extended until February 14, 2003.
Out of
At 21:50 -0800 2002-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is lightweight important?)
HTML and XML markup?
--
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
On 11/13/2002 05:40:53 AM Michael Everson wrote:
At 21:50 -0800 2002-11-12, Doug Ewell wrote:
3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is lightweight important?)
HTML and XML markup?
Doug was already comparing the plane 14 characters to
On 11/12/2002 11:50:51 PM Doug Ewell wrote:
1. What extra processing is necessary to interpret Plane 14 tags that
wouldn't be necessary to interpret any other form of tags?
Obviously, extra processing is needed either way.
2. What extra processing is necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags that
Hi.
3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is
lighter-weight
than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is lightweight important?)
HTML and XML markup?
Doug was already comparing the plane 14 characters to HTML and XML,
and
clearly considers the latter to be relatively heavy -- and
Dominikus Scherkl scripsit:
Or what do you think what weight in this context means?!?
I assumed it refers to protocol/parsing complexity. Stripping P14 tags
is done without even a finite-state machine, whereas parsing XML requires
a real parser.
--
Winter: MIT,
Doug Ewell wrote:
1. What extra processing is necessary to interpret Plane 14 tags that
wouldn't be necessary to interpret any other form of tags?
In order for the question to make sense, we should compare plain text with
plain text and rich text with rich text.
1.a) Take plain text: however
Michael Everson everson at evertype dot com wrote:
3. Is there any method of tagging, anywhere, that is lighter-weight
than Plane 14? (Corollary: Is lightweight important?)
HTML and XML markup?
and Peter_Constable at sil dot org replied:
Doug was already comparing the plane 14 characters
I wrote:
[...]
A lighter-weight method is not having language tagging at all
in plain text. This is appropriate in two cases:
3.a) When you don't language tagging.
[...] ^
Sorry: I meant: When you don't need
_ Marco
Marco Cimarosti marco dot cimarosti at essetre dot it wrote:
2. What extra processing is necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags that
wouldn't be necessary to ignore any other Unicode character(s)?
No extra processing would be necessary to ignore Plane 14 tags that
wouldn't be necessary to ignore
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:25:21AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this a corollary? It may be the crux of the issue. Tags using plane 14
characters may be the lightest mechanism around, but does anybody actually
need to avoid markup that badly?
GNU Libc used them to round-trip
On 11/13/2002 09:03:26 AM Dominikus Scherkl wrote:
Ok, this is less heavy, but not very much.
Or what do you think what weight in this context means?!?
There is weight in terms of bandwidth, but also in terms of mechanisms
needed to interpret markup. It takes a lot more to handle HTML or XML
I think Doug asked for lightweight. HTML and XML markup aren't
lightweight by any means, although a special purpose plain-text oriented
XML (LTML for language-tagged markup language) might not be that much
more involved than plane 14 tags. It would also have the advantage that
standard XSLT tools
I have been watching this thread for some time now, and Doug Newell's
comments have prompted me to add my two cent's worth.
In an effort to unify all character and pictographs, the decision was
made to unify CJK characters by suppressing most variant forms. That
turns out to be the single
William Overington asked:
As the Unicode Consortium invited public comments on the possible
deprecation of plane 14 tag characters, will the Unicode Consortium be
making a prompt public statement of the result of the review as soon as the
present meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee is
Kenneth Whistler kenw at sybase dot com wrote:
The Unicode Technical Committee would like to announce that no
formal decision has been taken regarding the deprecation of
Plane 14 language tag characters. The period for public review of
this issue will be extended until February 14, 2003.
As the Unicode Consortium invited public comments on the possible
deprecation of plane 14 tag characters, will the Unicode Consortium be
making a prompt public statement of the result of the review as soon as the
present meeting of the Unicode Technical Committee is completed, or even
earlier if
William Overington WOverington at ngo dot globalnet dot co dot uk
wrote:
As the Unicode Consortium invited public comments on the possible
deprecation of plane 14 tag characters, will the Unicode Consortium be
making a prompt public statement of the result of the review as soon
as the present
46 matches
Mail list logo
