|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
Well, this is much more than I’d hoped for since 2013. Here’s a repost of the Androcles font with (some) Quikscript extensions on the third and fourth lines, just so everyone’s on the same page: If we
Well, this is much more than I’d hoped for since 2013. Here’s a repost of the Androcles font with (some) Quikscript extensions on the third and fourth lines, just so everyone’s on the same page: If we
|
By
Nathan Galt
· #2788
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
(Private response) _Colorable_ 'apparently true, potentially justifiable'. It can also mean 'specious, feigned', but that's plainly not the meaning intended here. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~c
(Private response) _Colorable_ 'apparently true, potentially justifiable'. It can also mean 'specious, feigned', but that's plainly not the meaning intended here. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~c
|
By
John Cowan
· #2787
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
Michael. I understood that shape was important. There are shapes and sounds that are identical between the two scripts: k s ʃ tʃ ŋ d z dʒ w ɪ ɛ æ ə ɔ ʊ r oʊ uː There are shapes that are identical betw
Michael. I understood that shape was important. There are shapes and sounds that are identical between the two scripts: k s ʃ tʃ ŋ d z dʒ w ɪ ɛ æ ə ɔ ʊ r oʊ uː There are shapes that are identical betw
|
By
Michael Everson
· #2786
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
That was an issue during Chinese/Japanese integration: Japanese readers are thrown by differences that look insignificant to Chinese readers. (In this case, "Japanese" and "Chinese" are cultural choic
That was an issue during Chinese/Japanese integration: Japanese readers are thrown by differences that look insignificant to Chinese readers. (In this case, "Japanese" and "Chinese" are cultural choic
|
By
John Cowan
· #2785
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
If we’re using 𐑥 and 𐑯 (S·Mime and S·Nun) for QS·Ah and QS·Awe, we’re going to need new code points for m and n sounds. S·Ah and S·Awe don’t look like QS·May or QS·No, no matter how many beers you’ve
If we’re using 𐑥 and 𐑯 (S·Mime and S·Nun) for QS·Ah and QS·Awe, we’re going to need new code points for m and n sounds. S·Ah and S·Awe don’t look like QS·May or QS·No, no matter how many beers you’ve
|
By
Nathan Galt
· #2784
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
As I explained in my reply to Mr Everson last month, I'm not sure that any more than an extension of 5 letters would be required, if unification with Shavian were to occur: hw/ʍ x ɬ ks gz The reason b
As I explained in my reply to Mr Everson last month, I'm not sure that any more than an extension of 5 letters would be required, if unification with Shavian were to occur: hw/ʍ x ɬ ks gz The reason b
|
By
Brad Neil
· #2783
·
|
|
I changed my mind: I'm willing to support the 2013 proposal
#standardization
Assuming there's no way to get the Consortium to accept anything more than the bare minimum of letters, I'd like to say that I support the 2013 proposal (a copy's at https://www.quikscript.net/proposa
Assuming there's no way to get the Consortium to accept anything more than the bare minimum of letters, I'd like to say that I support the 2013 proposal (a copy's at https://www.quikscript.net/proposa
|
By
Nathan Galt
· #2781
·
|
|
On the wisdom/utility of moving within the PUA
#standardization
What you want is representation in Unicode, and as far as I can see there is but one path to that. M
What you want is representation in Unicode, and as far as I can see there is but one path to that. M
|
By
Michael Everson
· #2778
·
|
|
On the wisdom/utility of moving within the PUA
#standardization
I think you're right. I hadn't really thought of just how much disruption it would cause, both short- and long-term, for no realistic practical gain for anybody. I just thought it would have been 'nic
I think you're right. I hadn't really thought of just how much disruption it would cause, both short- and long-term, for no realistic practical gain for anybody. I just thought it would have been 'nic
|
By
Brad Neil
· #2777
·
|
|
On the wisdom/utility of moving within the PUA
#standardization
In order to do a clean break, we’d need to convert all fonts, documents, and tooling to use the new codepoint set and damnatio-memoriae everything that uses the current codepoint set. This involves: m
In order to do a clean break, we’d need to convert all fonts, documents, and tooling to use the new codepoint set and damnatio-memoriae everything that uses the current codepoint set. This involves: m
|
By
Nathan Galt
· #2774
·
|
|
The path to Unicode standardization
#standardization
Hi all. If I may add my two cents to this discussion, I would also be in favour of the maximal dis-unification of Shavian and Quikscript characters. As Kingsley Read wrote in the Quikscript Manual its
Hi all. If I may add my two cents to this discussion, I would also be in favour of the maximal dis-unification of Shavian and Quikscript characters. As Kingsley Read wrote in the Quikscript Manual its
|
By
Brad Neil
· #2773
·
|
|
The path to Unicode standardization
#standardization
The reason Coptic and Greek were disunified rather than just allowing fonts to make the distinction was that mixed Greek and Coptic in the same document is very common, especially in dictionaries and
The reason Coptic and Greek were disunified rather than just allowing fonts to make the distinction was that mixed Greek and Coptic in the same document is very common, especially in dictionaries and
|
By
John Cowan
· #2746
·
|
|
The path to Unicode standardization
#standardization
I have a couple of pages in the pipe for quikscript.net on the subject, but they’re not quite publication-ready at this point. I’ll start a proper new thread on the subject to properly open this can o
I have a couple of pages in the pipe for quikscript.net on the subject, but they’re not quite publication-ready at this point. I’ll start a proper new thread on the subject to properly open this can o
|
By
Nathan Galt
· #2745
·
|