Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages

From: Ben Monroe (bendono@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 15:06:00 CST

  • Next message: Magda Danish (Unicode): "New FAQ page posted"

    On 10/30/07, vunzndi@vfemail.net <vunzndi@vfemail.net> wrote:
    > Quoting Ben Monroe <bendono@gmail.com>:
    >
    > > On 10/30/07, John H. Jenkins <jenkins@apple.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Oct 29, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Andrew West wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > On 29/10/2007, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> I guess I assumed that that was never intended to provide a
    > >> >> substitute for encoding the characters needed for Zhuang text -- it
    > >> >> would be a terrible way to represent Zhuang text, though I suppose
    > >> >> you can argue (as you have done) that it's valid.
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm sure that John has never suggested that IDS sequences should be a
    > >> > substitute for encoding, merely that given what the Unicode Standard
    > >> > currently says, it would be a feasible interim solution.
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> TUS is most emphatic on this point: An IDS is *not* the same thing as
    > >> encoding. It should be considered a better-than-nothing stop-gap
    > >> until something appropriate comes along (either an encoded character
    > >> or a registered variation sequence). I suppose that a text in say
    > >> Zhuang could use a custom font to hide the fact that most of it
    > >> consists of IDSs, but in such a case Unicode explicitly warns that no
    > >> operation other than display-related ones will likely work. Using an
    > >> IDS in running text is a hack.
    > >
    > > Considering the rejected characters, "until" does not seem appropriate.
    > > For such IDS is the only option. And not much of an option either
    > > since very few environments can actually render it.
    > >
    > > <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> ?
    >
    > An interesting first character <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D>, which an IDS
    > parser would not find too difficult. Is this someone's name? This
    > character is a good example, in that it is clearly not in the already
    > encoded CJKV charcters, there are no unification issues about this.

    Yes, my surname.
    I mentioned it around March 2002 on this list.
    You may find it in L2/07-161 (Index UTC00119) and the status is "Not to encode".

    <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D>
    Tky, Japan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 15:08:38 CST