At 11:54 AM 2/6/03 -0800, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
My personal opinion? The whole debate about deprecation of
language tag characters is a frivolous distraction from
other technical matters of greater import, and things would
be just fine with the current state of the documentation.
But, if formal
John H. Jenkins wrote:
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
Ah, but it could be.
I feel that as the matter was put forward for Public Review then it is
reasonable for someone reading of that review to respond to the review on
the basis of what is stated as the issue in the Public Review item itself.
Kenneth Whistler now states an opinion as to what the review is about and
At 01:52 AM 2/7/03 -0800, Andrew C. West wrote:
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
Ah, but it could be.
Ah, but it wouldn't be Unicode.
A(h)./
Asmus Freytag asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com wrote:
Unicode 4.0 will be quite specific: P14 tags are reserved for
use with particular protocols requiring their use is what the
text will say more or less.
I didn't know the question of what to do about Plane 14 language tags
had already been
James Kass wrote,
(What happens if someone discovers a 257th variant? Do they
get a prize? Or, would they be forever banished from polite
society?)
I was thinking about that. 256 variants of a single character may seem a tad
excessive, but there is a common Chinese decoartive motif
On Thursday, February 6, 2003, at 08:47 AM, Andrew C. West wrote:
There are also a number of other auspicious characters, such as fu2
(U+798F)
good fortune that may be found written in a hundred variant forms as
a
decorative motif.
Ah, but decorative motifs are not plain text.
==
.
Andrew C. West wrote,
Is this not what the variation selectors are available for ?
And now that we soon to have 256 of them, perhaps Unicode ought not to be shy
about using them for characters other than mathematical symbols.
Yes, there seem to be additional variation selectors coming in
.
Peter Constable wrote,
The plain-text file would be legible without that -- I don't think this is
an argument in favour of plane 14 tag characters. Preserving
culturally-preferred appearance would certainly require markup of some
form, whether lang IDs or for font-face and perhaps
At 06:24 PM 2/5/03 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The advantages of using P14 tags (...equals lang IDs mark-up) is
that runs of text could be tagged *in a standard fashion* and
preserved in plain-text.
The minute you have scoped tagging, you are no longer using
plain text.
The P14 tags are no
On 02/05/2003 12:24:39 PM jameskass wrote:
The advantages of using P14 tags (...equals lang IDs mark-up) is
that runs of text could be tagged *in a standard fashion* and
preserved in plain-text.
Sure, but why do we want to place so much demand on plain text when the
vast majority of content we
At 16:47 -0500 2003-02-05, Jim Allan wrote:
There are often conflicting orthographic usages within a language.
Language tagging alone does not indicate whether German text is to
be rendered in Roman or Fraktur, whether Gaelic text is to be
rendered in Roman or Uncial, and if Uncial, a modern
.
Asmus Freytag wrote,
Variation selectors also can be ignored based on their code
point values, but unlike p14 tags, they don't become invalid
when text is cutpaste from the middle of a string.
Excellent point.
Unicode 4.0 will be quite specific: P14 tags are reserved for
use with
.
Peter Constable wrote,
Sure, but why do we want to place so much demand on plain text when the
vast majority of content we interchange is in some form of marked-up or
rich text? Let's let plain text be that -- plain -- and look to the markup
conventions that we've invested so much in and
14 matches
Mail list logo
