I agree; when the nuggets of useful information are so overwhelmed by the
volume of rubble, you just can't afford the time to sift them out.
Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 14:46, Andrew West wrote:
> On 28 July 2010 22:09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> >
> > You'
"Markus Scherer"
>
> There are 857 combining marks with combining class of 0:
> http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[[:M:]%26[:ccc%3D0:]]&abb=on&g=
So what ? I perfectly know that there are a lot of diacritics with cc of 0.
It's DEFINITELY NOT me that contested that on this l
On 28 July 2010 22:09, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>
> You've not understood what I wanted to say.
Maybe if you said less people would understand more .
I don't know how much free time you must have on your hands to write
hundreds of lines in reply to almost every message on this list (3,879
lines in
> Message du 26/07/10 18:45
> De : "Markus Scherer"
> A : verd...@wanadoo.fr
> Copie à : "Unicode Mailing List"
> Objet : Re: Using Combining Double Breve and expressing characters perhaps as
> if struck out.
>
> There are 857 combi
There are 857 combining marks with combining class of 0:
http://unicode.org/cldr/utility/list-unicodeset.jsp?a=[[:M:]%26[:ccc%3D0:]]&abb=on&g=
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> "Kent Karlsson" wrote:
> > Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> >
> > > Double dia
"Kent Karlsson" wrote:
> Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
>
> > Double diacritics have a combining property equal to zero, so they
>
> No, they don't. The above ones have combining class 234 and the below
> ones have combining class 233 (other characters with the word DOUBLE
> in the
"Clark S. Cox III"
> How can *any* combining character have a combining class of zero? Isn't that
> a contradiction in terms?
>
> The U+035D in your example, for instance, has a combining class of 234.
No contradiction. Not all combining characters have a non-zero
combining class. The combining
> De : vanis...@boil.afraid.org
> Guys, does nobody read the bloody Standard anymore!?
>
> You CAN currently add a diacritic on top of a double diacritic. The "other"
> base character is called the Combining Grapheme Joiner (U+304F).
Sorry, I had forgotten this one. Note that I was not sure abou
Den 2010-07-24 10.07, skrev "Philippe Verdy" :
> Double diacritics have a combining property equal to zero, so they
No, they don't. The above ones have combining class 234 and the below
ones have combining class 233 (other characters with the word DOUBLE
in them are 'double' in some other way):
Guys, does nobody read the bloody Standard anymore!?
You CAN currently add a diacritic on top of a double diacritic. The "other"
base character is called the Combining Grapheme Joiner (U+304F).
>From V. 5.0, ch 7.9:
Occasionally one runs across orthographic conventions that use a dot, an acute
"Philippe Verdy" wrote:
> But even with this case, you wont be able to encode with the ZWJ trick
> in plain text, such groupings that are expressed this way in TeX:
>
> \breve{ \breve{oo} x \breve{ o\acute{o} } }
>
> Because double diacritics encoded in Unicode can't be safely stacked
> together
> Message du 24/07/10 09:02
> De : "William_J_G Overington"
> A : unicode@unicode.org
> Copie à : wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
> Objet : Using Combining Double Breve and expressing characters perhaps as if
> struck out.
>
>
> I have been looking at the follow
I have been looking at the following thread, which is entitled "Making Fonts
with Diacritical Marks for Phonetics".
http://forum.high-logic.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3169
I am writing here to ask two questions please in relation to the Unicode
aspects of the problem.
I have looked at http://w
13 matches
Mail list logo
