A 10:48 2002-07-19 +0100, Martin Kochanski a écrit :
>Alt+X would have been a solution if it had been consistently implemented:
>but there are several different and incompatible implementations floating
>around. The fundamental problem is, as you pointed out, that CACF9 AltX
>could have five different meanings and there is no way for the software to
>guess. Even within Microsoft's own software, there are wide variations in
>behaviour (convert all previously-typed characters; convert all characters
>before the current cursor position; convert highlighted characters only);
>and there is sometimes an inverse operation provided (Unicode character to
>hex), but that is sometimes Alt+X and sometimes Alt+Shift+X.
>
>ISO 14755 looks promising. For those who don't make it their daily reading
>(or to show off my pitiful misunderstanding of it), it could be described
>as "Use the Alt+nnn approach, but use Ctrl+Shift instead of Alt, to
>indicate hexadecimal digits". Am I right about this?
[Alain] What you describe is an example. ISO/IEC 14755 does not prescribe
the "beginning sequence" nor the "ending sequence" used to introduce and
end the Uxxxxx identifiers. For the example you give (see section 5.1 of
the International standard), it is said:
Note: In the following examples, it is assumed here that the beginning
sequence consists in the combined use of keys Level 2 Select and Control.
The ending sequence corresponds to the releasing of these keys. This should
only be considered as an example of implementation for these sequences.
When I answered yesterday:
A 09:26 2002-07-18 -0700, Addison Phillips [wM] a écrit :
>When I confronted this specific problem recently in our products, the main
>solution I adopted was to allow \uXXXX notation as input (of course, our
>products are for developers...)
>
>[Alain] That's an approach similar (I could even almost say "conformant")
>to the one proposed in ISO/IEC 14755, Input methods to enter UCS
>characters with the help of a[ny] keyboard.
then I told myself (that's why I wrote « I could even almost say
"conformant" » -- that was too prudent, it is conformant) that the "\u"
sequence here could be considered a "beginning sequence" and the character
SPACE an "ending sequence".
Alain LaBonté
Project editor, ISO/IEC 14755
Québec
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 19 2002 - 05:35:46 EDT