![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Can someone who knows who AAT are add to the AAT disambiguation page appropriately and also send the link on this page to the right place? Thanks EddEdmondson 08:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
please justify this. If it is not justified within a few days i will be reverting Plugwash 12:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a link in the external link section The strongest denunciation of Unicode, and a response to it which leads to a rather old paper in this context (2001); Isn't there something more recent? Otherwise I propose that these issues are treated from today's viewpoint within the article rather than giving this link. Hirzel 5 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
Redirect to Talk:Code2000
Umm, wasn't it that the Inkas had no forms of writing (apart from the k'ipu) (unsigned comment by 200.119.238.115)
I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but these bits just don't seem to fit in _at_ all. I was reading through it just then and I thought an anonymous user must have added it in for a laugh. I think a rewording's in order, but perhaps it's just me. I definately don't think it deserves quite as much as has been written about it, though. :-/ Someone care to back me up here, I'm not too sure of myself? Edit: Under the 'Development' Category -- Techtoucian 10:16, 07 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-- Jordi· ✆ 12:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"When writing about Unicode code points it is normal to use the form U+xxxx or U+xxxxxx where xxxx or xxxxxx is the hexadecimal code point." Could there be an explanation about why there are two notations? -- 132.203.92.116 16:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
-- Jordi· ✆ 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone claimed higher up this talk page near the start of a long section that VISCII had more precomposed characters than unicode. Our page on VISCII disagrees would anyone like to clarify. Plugwash 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the link in the first paragraph really refer to APL -- the programming language? Is this a typo; meant to be IPA? (International Phonetic Alphabet)
--Pkirlin
What computer jargon is not made-up? And I have never heard of "significant byte order"; if I didn't see it used with "endianness" in the log message, I wouldn't even know what "significant byte order" is. "Endianness" at least is comprehensible. (PS: In fact, if whoever did the edit tried to even do a quick google, he/she would know that the use of the word "endianness" is very widespread and does not qualify as a "made-up" word.)— Wing 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a connection between Unicode and Phonetics (such as the IPA)? With one symbol for each sound, it is similar to how Unicode's philosophy is. Maybe the next thing would be to have all languages standardized with a sound per symbol in Unicode.
"will display a box showing the hexadecimal": maybe mention that firefox does this too...
It would be good to have a link from technical reasons giving a brief explanation of the problem and what to do about it. For example, somewhere on Wiki there is a page suggesting some downloadable fonts for WinXP that are more complete than Arial Unicode MS. -- Red King 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
it should be mentioned in the section about different input methods for Unicode characters, that all X Window application (including Gnome and KDE, but not only them) support using Compose Key. And it should be added as well, that any key (e.g., hated CapsLock) could be redefined as Compose key, if the keyboard does not contain it natively.
Ceplm 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the digraph "ch"? -- 84.61.38.22 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for digraphs assigned? -- 84.61.50.36 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Can a code point in the private use area of Unicode become assigned for a digraph? -- 84.61.50.3 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the Apple logo? -- 84.61.31.185 10:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode separate code points for Greek and Cyrillic? -- 84.61.48.129 10:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for circuit components assigned? -- 84.61.37.190 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"Depending on the variant used, Unicode requires either 16 or 20 bits for each character represented." is completely wrong, and part of the reason I'm unhappy with these rewrites. Unicode never uses 20 bits for each character. In theory, it takes 20.1 bits to encode a Unicode character. In practice, the only constant length scheme uses 32 bits for each character.
Likewise, Unicode is not designed to encode all "human" languages. It's designed to encode all languages; it just happens that humans are the only group we know of that has a written language.-- Prosfilaes 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
what the crap, unicode 5.0 was supposed to be released some time after february 2006 but its been a while and its still not out possibly they're running behind schedule? 66.169.1.14 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for bold or italic accented letters assigned? -- 84.61.56.17 09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode not separate code points for Japanese, Korean, simplified Chinese, and traditional Chinese Han characters? -- 84.61.56.107 10:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for g-tilde? -- 84.61.62.20 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode not separate code points for the Latin letters A-F and the hexadecimal digits A-F? -- 84.61.62.67 09:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see some problems withthe text in this section:
That seems tomix up Unicode encodings with unicode as a document character set.
How is that different to any other use, such as wordprocessing or email?
Needs to say which version of IE, on which platform, and it seems to be incorrect anyway if referring to Windows IE6 or IE7
In fact Unicode has been the document character set ever since HTML 2.0.
This varies between XML1.0 and 1.1
There are no Unicode code points above 10FFFF by definition. -- Nantonos 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Unicode has been the document character set ever since HTML 2.0. — that is completely incorrect. In HTML 2.0 and 3.2, it was ISO 646:1983 IRV (ASCII, basically) minus all control codes except tab, LF, and CR, plus ISO IR-001/ECMA 94 minus control codes (ISO/IEC 8859-1, basically). [2] [3]. In HTML 4.0 the document character set is Unicode's entire range up to 10FFFF, minus the surrogate range and the same control characters that were disallowed in the previous versions. XML 1.0 doesn't use the term "document character set" but it does have the same concept: regardless of how the document is encoded (UTF-8, ASCII, whatever), it consists only of characters from a limited repertoire that is almost, but not quite the same as in HTML 4. This info is in the XML specs but really is not relevant to this article.— mjb 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The "###" in "Alt+0###" is not a Unicode code point and therefore this is not a Unicode input method. On my US Win2K system it appears to be giving me Windows-1252 characters. For example, Alt+0128 gives me the Euro symbol, and anything above 255 is entered as if I had typed it modulo 256 (e.g., 256=000, 257=001, and so on). This misinformation about it being "Unicode" is repeated on Alt codes as well. Please research the actual behavior and fix the articles. Thanks!— mjb 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for fullwidth accented letters assigned? -- 84.61.45.177 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a code point in Unicode for "Latin small letter dotless J" assigned? -- 84.61.54.142 10:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a code point in Unicode for "Latin capital letter J with dot above" assigned? -- 84.61.56.3 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for "Latin capital letter J with dot above" assigned? -- 84.61.48.130 10:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we insert the Unicode logo on the page?
The following reply was received from the Consortium on May 30, 1996:
— Monedula 11:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the Unicode logo assigned? -- 84.61.60.218 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode the encoding of new precomposed characters stopped? -- 84.61.71.139 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode many code points for precomposed characters assigned? -- 84.61.7.99 08:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for ligatures assigned? -- 84.61.7.99 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why are all Double Byte Character Sets, before Unicode was published, from East Asia? -- 84.61.7.99 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "the special marks are preceed the main letterform in the datastream" appears in the Ligatures section and seems to have a typo. Which of the following is it trying to say?
1: "the special marks preceed the main letterform in the datastream"
2: "the special marks are preceeded by the main letterform in the datastream"
These two phrases have opposite meanings, of course. -- Silent Blue 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
Can someone who knows who AAT are add to the AAT disambiguation page appropriately and also send the link on this page to the right place? Thanks EddEdmondson 08:59, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
please justify this. If it is not justified within a few days i will be reverting Plugwash 12:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a link in the external link section The strongest denunciation of Unicode, and a response to it which leads to a rather old paper in this context (2001); Isn't there something more recent? Otherwise I propose that these issues are treated from today's viewpoint within the article rather than giving this link. Hirzel 5 July 2005 10:14 (UTC)
Redirect to Talk:Code2000
Umm, wasn't it that the Inkas had no forms of writing (apart from the k'ipu) (unsigned comment by 200.119.238.115)
I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but these bits just don't seem to fit in _at_ all. I was reading through it just then and I thought an anonymous user must have added it in for a laugh. I think a rewording's in order, but perhaps it's just me. I definately don't think it deserves quite as much as has been written about it, though. :-/ Someone care to back me up here, I'm not too sure of myself? Edit: Under the 'Development' Category -- Techtoucian 10:16, 07 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-- Jordi· ✆ 12:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"When writing about Unicode code points it is normal to use the form U+xxxx or U+xxxxxx where xxxx or xxxxxx is the hexadecimal code point." Could there be an explanation about why there are two notations? -- 132.203.92.116 16:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
-- Jordi· ✆ 17:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone claimed higher up this talk page near the start of a long section that VISCII had more precomposed characters than unicode. Our page on VISCII disagrees would anyone like to clarify. Plugwash 01:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the link in the first paragraph really refer to APL -- the programming language? Is this a typo; meant to be IPA? (International Phonetic Alphabet)
--Pkirlin
What computer jargon is not made-up? And I have never heard of "significant byte order"; if I didn't see it used with "endianness" in the log message, I wouldn't even know what "significant byte order" is. "Endianness" at least is comprehensible. (PS: In fact, if whoever did the edit tried to even do a quick google, he/she would know that the use of the word "endianness" is very widespread and does not qualify as a "made-up" word.)— Wing 08:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Is there a connection between Unicode and Phonetics (such as the IPA)? With one symbol for each sound, it is similar to how Unicode's philosophy is. Maybe the next thing would be to have all languages standardized with a sound per symbol in Unicode.
"will display a box showing the hexadecimal": maybe mention that firefox does this too...
It would be good to have a link from technical reasons giving a brief explanation of the problem and what to do about it. For example, somewhere on Wiki there is a page suggesting some downloadable fonts for WinXP that are more complete than Arial Unicode MS. -- Red King 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
it should be mentioned in the section about different input methods for Unicode characters, that all X Window application (including Gnome and KDE, but not only them) support using Compose Key. And it should be added as well, that any key (e.g., hated CapsLock) could be redefined as Compose key, if the keyboard does not contain it natively.
Ceplm 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the digraph "ch"? -- 84.61.38.22 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for digraphs assigned? -- 84.61.50.36 11:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Can a code point in the private use area of Unicode become assigned for a digraph? -- 84.61.50.3 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the Apple logo? -- 84.61.31.185 10:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode separate code points for Greek and Cyrillic? -- 84.61.48.129 10:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for circuit components assigned? -- 84.61.37.190 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
"Depending on the variant used, Unicode requires either 16 or 20 bits for each character represented." is completely wrong, and part of the reason I'm unhappy with these rewrites. Unicode never uses 20 bits for each character. In theory, it takes 20.1 bits to encode a Unicode character. In practice, the only constant length scheme uses 32 bits for each character.
Likewise, Unicode is not designed to encode all "human" languages. It's designed to encode all languages; it just happens that humans are the only group we know of that has a written language.-- Prosfilaes 00:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
what the crap, unicode 5.0 was supposed to be released some time after february 2006 but its been a while and its still not out possibly they're running behind schedule? 66.169.1.14 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for bold or italic accented letters assigned? -- 84.61.56.17 09:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode not separate code points for Japanese, Korean, simplified Chinese, and traditional Chinese Han characters? -- 84.61.56.107 10:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for g-tilde? -- 84.61.62.20 12:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode not separate code points for the Latin letters A-F and the hexadecimal digits A-F? -- 84.61.62.67 09:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I see some problems withthe text in this section:
That seems tomix up Unicode encodings with unicode as a document character set.
How is that different to any other use, such as wordprocessing or email?
Needs to say which version of IE, on which platform, and it seems to be incorrect anyway if referring to Windows IE6 or IE7
In fact Unicode has been the document character set ever since HTML 2.0.
This varies between XML1.0 and 1.1
There are no Unicode code points above 10FFFF by definition. -- Nantonos 18:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Unicode has been the document character set ever since HTML 2.0. — that is completely incorrect. In HTML 2.0 and 3.2, it was ISO 646:1983 IRV (ASCII, basically) minus all control codes except tab, LF, and CR, plus ISO IR-001/ECMA 94 minus control codes (ISO/IEC 8859-1, basically). [2] [3]. In HTML 4.0 the document character set is Unicode's entire range up to 10FFFF, minus the surrogate range and the same control characters that were disallowed in the previous versions. XML 1.0 doesn't use the term "document character set" but it does have the same concept: regardless of how the document is encoded (UTF-8, ASCII, whatever), it consists only of characters from a limited repertoire that is almost, but not quite the same as in HTML 4. This info is in the XML specs but really is not relevant to this article.— mjb 01:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The "###" in "Alt+0###" is not a Unicode code point and therefore this is not a Unicode input method. On my US Win2K system it appears to be giving me Windows-1252 characters. For example, Alt+0128 gives me the Euro symbol, and anything above 255 is entered as if I had typed it modulo 256 (e.g., 256=000, 257=001, and so on). This misinformation about it being "Unicode" is repeated on Alt codes as well. Please research the actual behavior and fix the articles. Thanks!— mjb 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for fullwidth accented letters assigned? -- 84.61.45.177 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a code point in Unicode for "Latin small letter dotless J" assigned? -- 84.61.54.142 10:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there a code point in Unicode for "Latin capital letter J with dot above" assigned? -- 84.61.56.3 18:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for "Latin capital letter J with dot above" assigned? -- 84.61.48.130 10:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Should we insert the Unicode logo on the page?
The following reply was received from the Consortium on May 30, 1996:
— Monedula 11:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code point for the Unicode logo assigned? -- 84.61.60.218 15:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode the encoding of new precomposed characters stopped? -- 84.61.71.139 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode many code points for precomposed characters assigned? -- 84.61.7.99 08:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why has Unicode no code points for ligatures assigned? -- 84.61.7.99 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Why are all Double Byte Character Sets, before Unicode was published, from East Asia? -- 84.61.7.99 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "the special marks are preceed the main letterform in the datastream" appears in the Ligatures section and seems to have a typo. Which of the following is it trying to say?
1: "the special marks preceed the main letterform in the datastream"
2: "the special marks are preceeded by the main letterform in the datastream"
These two phrases have opposite meanings, of course. -- Silent Blue 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)