From unicode at unicode.org Fri Mar 1 01:36:42 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Fredrick Brennan via Unicode) Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2019 15:36:42 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Latin_capital_letter_Is_(=EA=9D=AC)?= Message-ID: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> Hello friends, I sent this query to Michael Everson directly on Feb. 19 but did not hear anything back. I assume that he was too busy to respond, perhaps I even broke some unwritten rule of etiquette, for which I apologize; so I am hoping that someone on the mailing list knows the answer instead. I am the author of an open source blackletter typeface based on, but not exactly the same as, the typeface used in the 1611 King James Bible and facsimile reproductions of the same named in homage "https://github.com/ctrlcctrlv/kjv1611". Although named such, I include as many glyphs as I can whether they existed in the 1611 KJV or not, as long as they were used in English blackletter typesetting generally. I am trying to find examples of the glyph encoded as U+A76C (?), the so-called Latin Capital Letter Is. I have found?https://www.bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/pagemax.aspx?strFest=0073&strPage=1?and examples of its younger brother, the so-called Latin Small Letter Is encoded as U+A76D (?). I checked?https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2006/06027-n3027-medieval.pdf?to encode these letters, and unfortunately found there no proof of the existence of the capital variant. Is it a dreaded?http://archives.miloush.net/michkap/archive/2011/12/14/10247653.html? How should I handle this in my font? Best, Fredrick Brennan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From unicode at unicode.org Sun Mar 3 07:20:02 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Denis Jacquerye via Unicode) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 13:20:02 +0000 Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IExhdGluIGNhcGl0YWwgbGV0dGVyIElzICjqnawp?= In-Reply-To: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> References: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> Message-ID: The original proposal N3027 L2/06-027 has a section titled ?Case-pairing? which says the following: ---- Most of the casing pairs shown below are attested in the examples. Those which are not, fall into two categories: those for which no capital can be constructed (such as LONG S) and those for which natural capitals can be easily formed. [...] Because of the general structural feature of the Latin script (from a theoretical point of view), and in order to facilitate modern casing operations for these letters, we have judged it appropriate to supply case-pairs for all the letters which admit of them. In a scholarly publication, for instance, an article title at the top of a journal page might be set in all caps; it would be nonsensical for all but one or two of the medievalist Latin letters to be able to be cased with an all caps command. (This precedent was set with the encoding of the archaic Coptic extensions.) ---- On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 15:29, Fredrick Brennan via Unicode < unicode at unicode.org> wrote: > Hello friends, > > I sent this query to Michael Everson directly on Feb. 19 but did not hear > anything back. I assume that he was too busy to respond, perhaps I even > broke some unwritten rule of etiquette, for which I apologize; so I am > hoping that someone on the mailing list knows the answer instead. > > I am the author of an open source blackletter typeface based on, but not > exactly the same as, the typeface used in the 1611 King James Bible and > facsimile reproductions of the same named in homage "KJV1611 > ". Although named such, I include > as many glyphs as I can whether they existed in the 1611 KJV or not, as > long as they were used in English blackletter typesetting generally. > > I am trying to find examples of the glyph encoded as U+A76C (?), the > so-called Latin Capital Letter Is. I have found ample proof > > and examples of its younger brother, the so-called Latin Small Letter Is > encoded as U+A76D (?). > > I checked Everson's proposal > to encode > these letters, and unfortunately found there no proof of the existence of > the capital variant. Is it a dreaded Unicode-ism > ? > How should I handle this in my font? > > Best, > Fredrick Brennan > > -- Denis Moyogo Jacquerye -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From unicode at unicode.org Sun Mar 3 08:22:22 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Michael Everson via Unicode) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2019 14:22:22 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IExhdGluIGNhcGl0YWwgbGV0dGVyIElzICjqnawp?= In-Reply-To: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> References: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> Message-ID: <4279FB8D-5CB0-4B15-A0C0-83D37516838A@evertype.com> Fredrick, > I sent this query to Michael Everson directly on Feb. 19 but did not hear anything back. I assume that he was too busy to respond, perhaps I even broke some unwritten rule of etiquette, for which I apologize; so I am hoping that someone on the mailing list knows the answer instead. I?m fairly sure you could have asked your question without this irritating paragraph. > I am trying to find examples of the glyph encoded as U+A76C (?), the so-called Latin Capital Letter Is. I have found ample proof and examples of its younger brother, the so-called Latin Small Letter Is encoded as U+A76D (?). There is no reason to use ?so-called?. One is called LATIN CAPITAL LETTER IS, and one is called LATIN SMALL LETTER IS. > I checked Everson's proposal to encode these letters, and unfortunately found there no proof of the existence of the capital variant. The encoding allows you to write ?sper?? and it allows you to write ?SPER??. To write ?SPER?" with the lower-case one would not be good. It is the same with ?ang?? and ?ANG??. The same with ?romano?? and ?ROMANO??. In my view, any writer should be able to choose the casing form of any letter. If you?re typesetting a journal, for instance, and want to use all caps or small caps in your page header, and the title of a chapter or article has such characters in it, it is problematic if the capital form is missing. I don't think it has been advantageous to the standard to balk at adding capital forms. A very few lower-case Latin letters probably can?t admit of a capital, but most of them can, and yet we are stuck wth waiting for someone to find a gap when we could with some reasonable design principles fill the gaps ourselves. > Is it a dreaded Unicode-ism? There is no such thing, and casing pairs are a normal part of the Latin script. These abbreviation characters were proposed, accepted, and added because of this structure. > How should I handle this in my font? Draw it as you wish. Most likely it will be the same shape as your lower-case one, adjusted to fit caps height. > Best, > Fredrick Brennan > From unicode at unicode.org Mon Mar 4 16:20:47 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Rick McGowan via Unicode) Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 14:20:47 -0800 Subject: IUC 43 - call for presentations closing soon Message-ID: <5C7DA4BF.4080608@unicode.org> For those who might be interested in submitting for the 43rd Internationalization & Unicode? Conference (IUC 43) in Santa Clara, California, October 16-18, 2019... The call for presentations closes at the end of this week. http://www.unicodeconference.org/e-marketing/IUC43-CfP-030419.htm From unicode at unicode.org Tue Mar 5 23:20:57 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (=?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJXvuI8=?= via Unicode) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2019 21:20:57 -0800 Subject: Unicode CLDR 35 alpha available for testing In-Reply-To: <20190228140321.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.eb8137361b.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> References: <20190228140321.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.eb8137361b.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Just via svn checkout for the alpha. By next time we plan to be on GitHub... {phone} On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 13:07 Doug Ewell via Unicode wrote: > announcements at unicode.org wrote: > > > The alpha version of Unicode CLDR 35 > > is available for > > testing. > > No downloadable data files in the sense of released builds, correct? > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 6 04:57:50 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Fredrick Brennan via Unicode) Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 18:57:50 +0800 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Latin_capital_letter_Is_(=EA=9D=AC)?= In-Reply-To: <4279FB8D-5CB0-4B15-A0C0-83D37516838A@evertype.com> References: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> <4279FB8D-5CB0-4B15-A0C0-83D37516838A@evertype.com> Message-ID: <16952a6ffe9.f6aeceb8182800.3816738398172618643@kittens.ph> > > I sent this query to Michael Everson directly on Feb. 19 but did not hear anything back. I assume that he was too busy to respond, perhaps I even broke some unwritten rule of etiquette, for which I apologize; so I am hoping that someone on the mailing list knows the answer instead. > > I?m fairly sure you could have asked your question without this irritating paragraph. Sorry once again. Yes I certainly could have. Thank you very much for explaining why capital forms are added for characters like this, I understand now why they are useful to have. I apologize for my former ignorance on this matter. > Draw it as you wish. Most likely it will be the same shape as your lower-case one, adjusted to fit caps height. As I'm working on a blackletter font, it's unfortunately not this easy. It seems like there is no blackletter style for the capital form from the period...so I'll have to perhaps either (A) leave it empty, assuming users of my font would never attempt to typeset a ? in blackletter but would choose e.g. Junicode instead, (B) look at examples in the Roman style and make up my own glyph as I've already done for Greek and Cyrillic, or (C) just make the glyph an "IS" ligature as I've already done for e.g. LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE ? (U+0132). If anyone has any idea or example glyph from the period I'd love to see it, but I doubt such exists :-) Thank you all for your clarifications of the standard. Best, Fredrick Brennan From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 6 12:09:08 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Michael Everson via Unicode) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 18:09:08 +0000 Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IExhdGluIGNhcGl0YWwgbGV0dGVyIElzICjqnawp?= In-Reply-To: <16952a6ffe9.f6aeceb8182800.3816738398172618643@kittens.ph> References: <169382f0fe4.fda9063f11894.2143770477657566603@kittens.ph> <4279FB8D-5CB0-4B15-A0C0-83D37516838A@evertype.com> <16952a6ffe9.f6aeceb8182800.3816738398172618643@kittens.ph> Message-ID: On 6 Mar 2019, at 10:57, Fredrick Brennan via Unicode wrote: >> Draw it as you wish. Most likely it will be the same shape as your lower-case one, adjusted to fit caps height. > > As I'm working on a blackletter font, it's unfortunately not this easy. Sure it is. > It seems like there is no blackletter style for the capital form from the period? so I'll have to perhaps either (A) leave it empty, assuming users of my font would never attempt to typeset a ? in blackletter but would choose e.g. Junicode instead, That?s a not a good idea. > (B) look at examples in the Roman style and make up my own glyph as I've already done for Greek and Cyrillic, That is a better idea. > or (C) just make the glyph an "IS" ligature as I've already done for e.g. LATIN CAPITAL LIGATURE ? (U+0132). That is a very bad idea. If a text has a ? in it, a ? should be displayed, not an IS. Particularly as in Middle English the correct reading might be ES, and in Middle Cornish the reading might be YS. > If anyone has any idea or example glyph from the period I'd love to see it, but I doubt such exists :-) You are the type designer. You may live in the 21st century, but you could just as easily have lived in the 16th. Your client says ?I need a ? glyph? and it?s up to you to design one. The easiest thing for your purposes (since you may not find a capital ? easily is to take the ? glyph and modify it to fit between caps height and baseline. Cheers, Michael Everson From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 13 04:42:28 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 10:42:28 +0100 Subject: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059) In-Reply-To: <868t6b4vkh.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> ("Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode"'s message of "Mon, 16 Jul 2018 07:07:58 +0200") References: <868t6b4vkh.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <86k1h33ybf.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> Hi! On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at 7:07 +02, Janusz S. Bie? via Unicode wrote: > FAQ (http://unicode.org/faq/vs.html) states: > > For historic scripts, the variation sequence provides a useful tool, > because it can show mistaken or nonce glyphs and relate them to the > base character. It can also be used to reflect the views of > scholars, who may see the relation between the glyphs and base > characters differently. Also, new variation sequences can be added > for new variant appearances (and their relation to the base > characters) as more evidence is discovered. I'm proof-reading a paper where I quote the above fragment and to my surprise I noticed it's no longer present in the FAQ. So my question are: 1. Does the change mean the change of the official policy of the Consortium? 2. Are the archival versions of the FAQ available somewhere? 3. Are the changes to the FAQ documented somehow (a version control system?)? Best regards Janusz -- , Janusz S. Bien emeryt (emeritus) https://sites.google.com/view/jsbien From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 13 05:25:40 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Takao Fujiwara via Unicode) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 19:25:40 +0900 Subject: Unicode CLDR 35 alpha available for testing In-Reply-To: References: <20190228140321.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.eb8137361b.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <7b810bb1-51a8-8e3c-a138-c663d1568ffb@redhat.com> Thank you. On 2019/03/06 14:20, Mark Davis ?? via Unicode-san wrote: > Just via svn checkout for the alpha. > > By next time we plan to be on GitHub... > > {phone} > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019, 13:07 Doug Ewell via Unicode > wrote: > > announcements at unicode.org wrote: > > > The alpha version of Unicode CLDR 35 > > is available for > > testing. > > No downloadable data files in the sense of released builds, correct? > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org > > From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 13 11:48:25 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Ken Whistler via Unicode) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:48:25 -0700 Subject: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059) In-Reply-To: <86k1h33ybf.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> References: <868t6b4vkh.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> <86k1h33ybf.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: On 3/13/2019 2:42 AM, Janusz S. Bie? via Unicode wrote: > Hi! > > On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at 7:07 +02, Janusz S. Bie? via Unicode wrote: >> FAQ (http://unicode.org/faq/vs.html) states: >> >> For historic scripts, the variation sequence provides a useful tool, >> because it can show mistaken or nonce glyphs and relate them to the >> base character. It can also be used to reflect the views of >> scholars, who may see the relation between the glyphs and base >> characters differently. Also, new variation sequences can be added >> for new variant appearances (and their relation to the base >> characters) as more evidence is discovered. > I'm proof-reading a paper where I quote the above fragment and to my > surprise I noticed it's no longer present in the FAQ. That text is, in fact, still present on the FAQ page in question: https://www.unicode.org/faq/vs.html#18 > > So my question are: > > 1. Does the change mean the change of the official policy of the > Consortium? Your premise here, however, is mistaken. The FAQ pages do *not*, and never have represented official policy of the Unicode Consortium. The individual FAQ entries are contributed by many people -- some attributed, and some not. They are updated or added to periodically by various editors, in response to feedback, or as old entries grow out-dated, or new issues arise. Those updates are editorial, and do not reflect any official decision process by Unicode technical committees or officers. The FAQ main page itself points out that "The FAQs are contributed by many people," and invites the public to submit possible new entries for editing and addition to the list of FAQs. For official technical content, refer to the published technical specifications themselves, which are carefully controlled, versioned, and archived. For official policies of the Unicode Consortium, refer to the Unicode Consortium policies page, which is also carefully controlled: https://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html > > 2. Are the archival versions of the FAQ available somewhere? https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.unicode.org/faq/ > > 3. Are the changes to the FAQ documented somehow (a version control > system?)? No. --Ken From unicode at unicode.org Wed Mar 13 14:09:04 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Janusz S. =?utf-8?Q?Bie=C5=84?= via Unicode) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 20:09:04 +0100 Subject: Variation Sequences (and L2-11/059) In-Reply-To: (Ken Whistler's message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:48:25 -0700") References: <868t6b4vkh.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> <86k1h33ybf.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> Message-ID: <8636nq617z.fsf@mimuw.edu.pl> On Wed, Mar 13 2019 at 9:48 -07, Ken Whistler wrote: > On 3/13/2019 2:42 AM, Janusz S. Bie? via Unicode wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Mon, Jul 16 2018 at 7:07 +02, Janusz S. Bie? via Unicode wrote: >>> FAQ (http://unicode.org/faq/vs.html) states: >>> >>> For historic scripts, the variation sequence provides a useful tool, >>> because it can show mistaken or nonce glyphs and relate them to the >>> base character. It can also be used to reflect the views of >>> scholars, who may see the relation between the glyphs and base >>> characters differently. Also, new variation sequences can be added >>> for new variant appearances (and their relation to the base >>> characters) as more evidence is discovered. >> I'm proof-reading a paper where I quote the above fragment and to my >> surprise I noticed it's no longer present in the FAQ. > > That text is, in fact, still present on the FAQ page in question: > > https://www.unicode.org/faq/vs.html#18 I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion, I should check it more carefully. > >> >> So my question are: >> >> 1. Does the change mean the change of the official policy of the >> Consortium? > > Your premise here, however, is mistaken. The FAQ pages do *not*, and > never have represented official policy of the Unicode Consortium. That I expected but asked just to be on the safe side. > The > individual FAQ entries are contributed by many people -- some > attributed, and some not. They are updated or added to periodically by > various editors, in response to feedback, or as old entries grow > out-dated, or new issues arise. Those updates are editorial, and do > not reflect any official decision process by Unicode technical > committees or officers. The FAQ main page itself points out that "The > FAQs are contributed by many people," and invites the public to submit > possible new entries for editing and addition to the list of FAQs. BTW, what about copyright of FAQ entries? Do I guess correctly it belongs to the consortium? To be specific, what about using and entry in full in English or in translation as or in a Wikipedia entry? > > For official technical content, refer to the published technical > specifications themselves, which are carefully controlled, versioned, > and archived. > > For official policies of the Unicode Consortium, refer to the Unicode > Consortium policies page, which is also carefully controlled: > > https://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html Thanks for reminding. >> 2. Are the archival versions of the FAQ available somewhere? > > https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.unicode.org/faq/ Great! Best regards Janusz -- , Janusz S. Bien emeryt (emeritus) https://sites.google.com/view/jsbien From unicode at unicode.org Mon Mar 18 12:53:45 2019 From: unicode at unicode.org (Rick McGowan via Unicode) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 10:53:45 -0700 Subject: Unicode CLDR 35 beta available for testing Message-ID: <5C8FDB29.4010700@unicode.org> The *beta* version of Unicode CLDR 35 is available for testing. The final release is expected on March 27. Aside from documenting additional structure, there have been important modifications LDML (scan for the yellow highlighted sections). See Modifications for details. There is (limited) time for feedback on the changes to the specification: please file feedback at http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/newticket. Unicode CLDR 35 provides an update to the key building blocks for software supporting the world's languages. CLDR data is used by all major software systems for their software internationalization and localization, adapting software to the conventions of different languages for such common software tasks. CLDR 35 included a limited Survey Tool data collection phase , adding approximately 54 thousand new translated fields: *Basic coverage* New languages at *Basic* coverage: Cebuano (ceb), Hausa (ha), Igbo (ig), Yoruba (yo) *Modern coverage* Languages Somali (so) and Javanese (jv) has additional coverage from *Moderate* to *Modern* *Emoji 12.0* Names and annotations (search keywords) for 90+ new emoji ; Also includes fixes for previous names & keywords *Collation* Collation updated to *Unicode 12.0*, including new emoji; Japanese single-character (ligature) era names added to collation and search collation *Measurement units* 23 additional units *Date formats* Two additional flexible formats, and 20 new interval formats *Japanese calendar* Updated to Gannen (??) number format for years *Region Names* Many names updated to local equivalents of ?North Macedonia? (MK ) and ?Eswatini? (SZ ) A dot release, version 35.1 is expected in April, with further changes for Japanese calendar. For details, see Detailed Specification Changes , Detailed Structure Changes , Detailed Data Changes , Growth . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: