Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7258 > unrolled thread

Typography of programs

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 02:06 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 19:57 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:08 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:16 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:56 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 09:06 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 02:25 -0500
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:21 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 21:43 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:21 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:49 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:59 +1200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:23 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:25 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:52 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:53 +1200
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:58 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:11 +1200
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 11:17 +0200
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 12:19 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 17:30 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 15:40 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 12:02 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-06-30 20:13 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-03 01:22 +0200
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:43 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 08:20 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-30 17:13 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-01 08:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 10:58 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 09:27 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 12:04 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 12:42 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 02:05 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> - 2011-07-01 18:10 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 09:21 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 14:36 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-07-01 19:29 -0400
              Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-02 11:22 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-07-01 23:59 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-30 07:48 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-06-30 10:03 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:32 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:34 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 11:06 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 16:05 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 14:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:39 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 20:55 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 09:11 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 21:50 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-01 08:26 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 13:38 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-01 23:16 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 21:46 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 21:52 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 02:14 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 00:38 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:28 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
                  Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 01:01 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-04 08:15 +0100
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:40 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.3nbmk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-04 07:42 -0500
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 07:15 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:56 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-04 08:04 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:22 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 22:45 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-05 21:52 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:03 -0700
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:46 +0200
                            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 00:08 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-06 12:12 +0000
                            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-06 11:10 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-06 07:42 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 11:02 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 10:22 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 13:51 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 15:45 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.piror@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 07:31 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 01:47 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:10 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-07-04 15:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-03 19:39 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 14:01 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-03 14:26 -0700
              Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-04 01:19 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:19 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:46 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:43 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 23:03 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 06:32 -0400
                Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:08 -0500
            Re: Typography of programs Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 18:01 +0300
    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 16:28 +0100
    Re: Typography of programs pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-02 20:52 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:50 -0500
    Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:04 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:27 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:19 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 10:14 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 02:48 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 11:47 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 07:44 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:50 +1200

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#7427

>> > Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
>> 
>> How many people can visually distinguish those possible signs from
>> each other?
> 
> Ah....so the argument is that if at least one newsreader cannot handle UTF-8, 
> nobody should.

No, I mean how many people can visually distinguish those possible
signs from each other, when looking at a display that properly
handles Unicode, or when looking at them printed *on paper*?

As an example, when I invoke the Openoffice "insert special character"
function, (yes, this *is* an editor which supports Unicode, but it
doesn't produce plain text files any compiler would take).  I see
25 Unicode characters that look like a capital A with some sort of
squiggle at the top, and I can't distinguish them easily without a
magnifying glass (and some of them, not even with a magnifying
glass) even though the selector menu presents the character as about
half an inch high, much larger than it would be in a document.
(Having taken French in high school I know what some of the accents
are for.)  And that's only looking at the Arial font!  There's a
lot of difference between supposedly the same character in different
fonts.

How, for example, do you distinguish between \u002f, \u2044, \u2215,
\u2571, \u29f8, and \uff0f ?  (all of them look like a / )  My bet
is that only one of these can be used to start a C comment.

There seem to be a lot of Unicode characters which are either
undefined or Firefox (or X11) doesn't include a graphic for them.



>> > #define ? or
>> > #define ? <=
>> > #define ? >=
> 
>> 3.  How the heck do I type that character?
> 
> option-=
What does that mean?


> Edit > Special Characters > Logical And > \u2227
> Edit > Special Characters > Logical Or > \u2228

I can't find those characters in the OpenOffice fonts.  There seems
to be nothing between \u221f and \u2229.  Apparently supporting
Unicode does not necessarily mean supporting all the characters in
Unicode.  

How do I tell the difference between \u2228 (logical or), \u0056
(capital V), and \u0076  (lower-case v), \u0474, \u0475, \u0667,
\u13d9, \u2164 (roman-numeral capital V), \u2174 (roman-numeral
lower-case v), \u22c1, \u2a56, \uff36, and \uff56 ?

I hate to think of how many Unicode characters there are that look
like C single or double quotes.

> option-<
> option->
> 
>> > Using ? for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using 
>> > = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.

It would probably cause the to-become-common beginner's error of
using the wrong character to start a C comment.

>> 
>> Using something that looks like a *question mark* for assignment
>> would be extremely confusing.  Using something that turns into a
>> *question mark* when posted to comp.lang.c would be even more
>> confusing.
> 
> I've been thinking about doing
>    <=  ==  ==  >
>    <=  :=  =   >
>    <=  =   erroreq >
>    <erroreq>
>        #error Used '=' instead of ':=' or '=='.
>    <>
> 
> That will force me to use := and == only and catching all those = errors.
> 
>> Why should we need a C-specific keyboard?
> Buy a Mac. They've supported extended character sets with the Option key for the 
> last 17 years. MacOSX has had Unicode support since 10.0.

Why should we *need* a C-specific keyboard?

>> You might be right about many editors supporting UTF-8.  How many users
>> know how to use those features?  And how many of those support UTF-8 on
>> a text console?
> 
> The Terminal app supports Unicode. 

How many people know how to use that feature, for example, to type
a \u2228 character?

> The biggest impediment is actually shells 
> that were intended for 1970s era glass TTYs. Quartz apps like TextEdit, Xcode, 
> FireFox, etc, have no problems with Unicode. I don't use X-Windows on the Mac, 
> so I don't know how many of those have ported from the 1980s into the 1990s.
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7429

In article <FoCdnTv5gpykWJPTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
 gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> As an example, when I invoke the Openoffice "insert special character"
> function, (yes, this *is* an editor which supports Unicode, but it

Get a Mac. Use XCode or TextEdit.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7473

China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:
> In article <FoCdnTv5gpykWJPTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
>  gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
>> As an example, when I invoke the Openoffice "insert special character"
>> function, (yes, this *is* an editor which supports Unicode, but it
>
> Get a Mac. Use XCode or TextEdit.

Or else I can't write C source code?  No thanks.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7543

On 2011-07-02, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Get a Mac.

If your feature suggestion for an "improvement" to the language starts by
throwing out 80% or more of the market, it is a bad feature suggestion.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7548

In article <slrnj11utr.rek.usenet-nospam@guild.seebs.net>,
 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:

> On 2011-07-02, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Get a Mac.
> 
> If your feature suggestion for an "improvement" to the language starts by
> throwing out 80% or more of the market, it is a bad feature suggestion.

Since you're claiming Micrsoft, Linux, etc are too firmly rooted in the glass 
TTY software of the 1980s, for your own sake get some modern software. If Apple 
is the only company bravely stridely into the year 2001, go with Apple.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7563

On 2011-07-04, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Since you're claiming Micrsoft, Linux, etc are too firmly rooted in the glass 
> TTY software of the 1980s, for your own sake get some modern software.

What's the "glass TTY software of the 1980s" got to do with anything?

None of the symbols you describe are on my keyboard.  Typing them cannot
be other than intrusive and unpleasant.  At the bare minimum it requires me to
memorize some number of key sequences which are not labeled on the keycaps,
or to use some elaborate software keyboard thing.

There are two problems with your proposed solution of "get a mac".
1.  It's arrogant and not actually a viable option on the table for the
vast majority of the people working with C right now.
2.  It doesn't even solve the problem, so why bother?

> If Apple 
> is the only company bravely stridely into the year 2001, go with Apple.

If you will offer me a steady job paying at least as much as my current
job does, which does not in any way require me to use Linux or MS machines,
then I will consider your suggestion.

Briefly.

Then I will tell you to bugger off because the software you describe is
but a MINISCULE portion of what I care about.

I care whether my code compiles in a variety of compilers, many of which
have no support for your proposed typography.  I care whether I can reliably
print C code out in the fonts that happen to be available on a given printer,
not just in a tiny subset of available fonts.  I care whether I can send
people C code with reasonable confidence that they will be able to read it,
whether it will display correctly in web fora, and so on and so forth.

I do not think it exaggeration to say that, in a typical year, I interact
with *hundreds* of distinct piece of software which need to be able
to read, display, or otherwise interact with C code, but which may not have
sufficiently-stable UTF8 support for this to work.

Meanwhile, the proposed benefit is... what, exactly?  I don't see any.  I've
been used to the idea that some symbols are expressed with more than one
character for a very long time now, ;-), and I don't feel a pressing need
to replace two characters which work reliably on all of my machines with a
single character which works reliably on none of them.

I'm typing this on a Mac, using ssh to another Mac which is running
a natively-compiled newsreader... And all I see for your proposed symbols
is "?".  Maybe something somewhere could be reconfigured.  Maybe I picked
the wrong font for Terminal, or the wrong terminal name for my ssh, or
maybe screen is doing something, maybe slrn doesn't support UTF8, maybe the
news server garbled it... I don't know, and I frankly don't care.

This is a dumb idea.  There are real, significant advantages to making the
core language typeable using plain ASCII, and these advantages continue to
apply even if you're working entirely in an environment with pretty good
unicode support.

We have not yet reached the point where it is reasonably safe to assume that
a web page which attempts to encode "smart quotes" will display correctly
on the top five or so popular browsers with their default settings.  If you
think that, in such a world, it is even close to sane to suggest that we
make a programming language depend on such things for displaying common
operators... well, that's beyond what I can help.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7567

On 03-Jul-11 23:42, Seebs wrote:
> We have not yet reached the point where it is reasonably safe to assume that
> a web page which attempts to encode "smart quotes" will display correctly
> on the top five or so popular browsers with their default settings.

Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
declaration?

The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7570

Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:

> On 03-Jul-11 23:42, Seebs wrote:
>> We have not yet reached the point where it is reasonably safe to assume that
>> a web page which attempts to encode "smart quotes" will display correctly
>> on the top five or so popular browsers with their default settings.
>
> Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
> browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
> declaration?

Although it might work for smart-quotes, there are plenty of pages that
try to display the far reaches of Unicode and fail, because not all -
sometimes barely any - fonts include the characters.

Here's an example.  I haven't actually checked that the page doesn't
make any mistakes but I'd be surprised.

http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html

None of them display in my default set up.
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7574

In article <87zkkuo6s3.fsf@temporary-address.org.uk>,
 Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:

> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> 
> > On 03-Jul-11 23:42, Seebs wrote:
> >> We have not yet reached the point where it is reasonably safe to assume 
> >> that
> >> a web page which attempts to encode "smart quotes" will display correctly
> >> on the top five or so popular browsers with their default settings.
> >
> > Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
> > browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
> > declaration?
> 
> Although it might work for smart-quotes, there are plenty of pages that
> try to display the far reaches of Unicode and fail, because not all -
> sometimes barely any - fonts include the characters.
> 
> Here's an example.  I haven't actually checked that the page doesn't
> make any mistakes but I'd be surprised.
> 
> http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html
> 
> None of them display in my default set up.

I'm really disappointed I can't use Egyptian Hieroglyphs in my C programs. 
However I can use the Greek, Arrows, and Mathematical Operators blocks.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7586

> I'm really disappointed I can't use Egyptian Hieroglyphs in my C programs. 

Don't you want to be able to use poker hands as (5-character) variable
names?

> However I can use the Greek, Arrows, and Mathematical Operators blocks.

*How many* characters can you use in the Mathematical Operators
blocks?  I'm assuming that block is defined as a character inside
\u22XX.

My X11 fonts (as used by an xterm) seem to have all 256 characters
in that block (at least they look different from the dummy character,
and at least a little different from each other).  Firefox seems
to also display them.  (www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/block/index.htm
has some nice unicode test pages for browsers).  As to whether they
are correct, I don't know, but I recognize some of them as mathematical
operators.

OpenOffice offers only 17 characters in that block in its "insert special
character" menu.  It seems to display my test chart with all 256 characters
when I cut-and-paste it from an xterm into an OpenOffice text document.

My X11 fonts don't seem to have the Playing Card block ( \u1f1XX ).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7590

In article <DP6dnXcB5Za2KIzTnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>,
 gordonb.3nbmk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> *How many* characters can you use in the Mathematical Operators
> blocks?

All of them.

> My X11 fonts (as used by an xterm) seem to have all 256 characters

All you're doing is complaining about the inadequacies of your software. As an 
experiment I went to Edit > Special Characters... and found the Coptic block for 
which my Mac only had undefined glyphs. After a few minutes search I found 
http://apagreekkeys.org/NAUdownload.html and downloaded their true type fonts. I 
moved that into ~/Library/Fonts and reopenned the Special Characters. I can now 
see Coptic glyphs. And as soon as I can see them there I can use them just about 
anywhere, including Terminal.

> OpenOffice offers only 17 characters in that block in its "insert special
> character" menu.  It seems to display my test chart with all 256 characters
> when I cut-and-paste it from an xterm into an OpenOffice text document.

Somebody can write a Linux version of the Special Characters.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7677

On 2011-07-04, China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> All you're doing is complaining about the inadequacies of your software.

Well, yeah.

The point is, there's a whole lot of software which doesn't have completely
reliable support for unicode, so relying on it seems a bad idea.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7592

On 04-Jul-11 02:15, Dr Nick wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
>> On 03-Jul-11 23:42, Seebs wrote:
>>> We have not yet reached the point where it is reasonably safe to
>>> assume that a web page which attempts to encode "smart quotes" will
>>> display correctly on the top five or so popular browsers with their
>>> default settings.
>>
>> Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
>> browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
>> declaration?
> 
> Although it might work for smart-quotes, there are plenty of pages that
> try to display the far reaches of Unicode and fail, because not all -
> sometimes barely any - fonts include the characters.

Still, if the browser is properly decoding a properly-formatted document
and the OS is simply unable to display it because it doesn't have
adequate fonts, that's an entirely different matter than what was being
discussed.  I'm not aware of any modern system that doesn't have "smart
quotes" or the various operator glyphs M. Navia proposed.  Certainly,
they're not a problem for Windows, Mac or Linux.

> Here's an example.  I haven't actually checked that the page doesn't
> make any mistakes but I'd be surprised.

I don't see any glaring mistakes, but they used character entities (eg.
"&#77824;") rather than directly encoding the characters.  That
sidesteps the most common errors, at the expense of a few extra bytes.

> http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html
> 
> None of them display in my default set up.

Neither in mine, but it took less than a minute to download and install
a font with the appropriate glyphs, and now they display fine.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7678

On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Still, if the browser is properly decoding a properly-formatted document
> and the OS is simply unable to display it because it doesn't have
> adequate fonts, that's an entirely different matter than what was being
> discussed.  I'm not aware of any modern system that doesn't have "smart
> quotes" or the various operator glyphs M. Navia proposed.  Certainly,
> they're not a problem for Windows, Mac or Linux.

Perhaps.  Doesn't change the fact that, in general, there's a whole lot of
software that people may be using for whatever reasons which doesn't display
these glyphs, and I don't see a huge upside benefit here.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7576

On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> On 03-Jul-11 23:42, Seebs wrote:
>
> The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
> inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
> vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
> cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.

While I don't have an example at hand, I've seen many a site display
characters differently depending on whether it is viewed in IE or
Firefox, even on the same machine.

Same thing with M$ Word and OpenOffice, character sets differ even when
viewing the same document. Even in simple text editors that should be
utf8-capable things sometimes go horribly wrong.

I'm all for using an appropriate character set for documents, but I feel
that a program's source should not depend on such fickle things as
character sets and locales.


However, those that want to see program source displayed in utf8 can
write themselves an editor that keeps the usual && and == in the source
but translates them on screen as whatever characters they like. That should
keep both sides happy, and doesn't require a fundamental change in the
language that will likely cause far more problems than it solves.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7591

On 04-Jul-11 03:04, Angel wrote:
> On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
>> inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
>> vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
>> cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.
> 
> While I don't have an example at hand, I've seen many a site display
> characters differently depending on whether it is viewed in IE or
> Firefox, even on the same machine.

That's why I asked for examples.  I've seen that, and similar problems,
numerous times but in _every_ case I've examined to date, the issue was
that the page lacked charset declaration; in such cases, browsers use
heuristics to determine the charset, but each browser is different, so
results vary.

> Same thing with M$ Word and OpenOffice, character sets differ even when
> viewing the same document.

I've never had that problem.  Again, can you provide an example?

> Even in simple text editors that should be utf8-capable things
> sometimes go horribly wrong.

I haven't had a problem with Unicode in text editors since MS Notepad
started inserting a BOM at the start of files.  Prior to that, I had
numerous instances where it would incorrectly load or save files as
UTF-16 (or maybe it was UCS-2 at the time) despite being explicitly told
to use UTF-8.

> I'm all for using an appropriate character set for documents, but I feel
> that a program's source should not depend on such fickle things as
> character sets and locales.

Even C has the concept of a character set for sources, presumably to
allow writing programs in ASCII, EBCDIC, etc.  I've never tried, but I'm
pretty sure I wouldn't be able to read/edit/compile programs written in
EBCDIC without significant extra work--probably more than what would be
required to handle M. Navia's proposed change.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7679

On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
> browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
> declaration?

Probably not.

> The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
> inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
> vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
> cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.

Doubtless.

But the fact remains, if you use the normal tools people have lying around
to create pages, there's a pretty real risk of ending up with a page in
which apostrophes display only on Macs or only on Windows or something
similar.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7680

Le 05/07/11 22:21, Seebs a écrit :
> On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk<stephen@sprunk.org>  wrote:
>> Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
>> browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
>> declaration?
>
> Probably not.
>
>> The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
>> inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
>> vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
>> cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.
>
> Doubtless.
>
> But the fact remains, if you use the normal tools people have lying around
> to create pages, there's a pretty real risk of ending up with a page in
> which apostrophes display only on Macs or only on Windows or something
> similar.
>
> -s


That will be ALWAYS the case. There are still some terminals that do
not have the "{" character like the IBM 3270.

Happily for us some people in the eighties decided that we couldn't
afford to remain compatible with those terminals and introduced ASCII
terminals.

My proposal is the same. If there is some older hardware/software
combination that can't display ≠ (Alt"+" in my Mac keyboard)
they can always translate ≠ to "!="

Or you can run a simple filter and be done with it.

But there will be always some naysayers that will be aginst ANY
improvements however minimal. This is the problem with this
group.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7682

jacob navia wrote:
) That will be ALWAYS the case. There are still some terminals that do
) not have the "{" character like the IBM 3270.
)
) Happily for us some people in the eighties decided that we couldn't
) afford to remain compatible with those terminals and introduced ASCII
) terminals.
)
) My proposal is the same. If there is some older hardware/software
) combination that can't display ??? (Alt"+" in my Mac keyboard)
) they can always translate ??? to "!="
)
) Or you can run a simple filter and be done with it.

Or you do it the other way around: Have the IDE display the appropriate
glyphs for the different operators.  That way you have the same benefits.

SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7692

On Jul 5, 1:45 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 05/07/11 22:21, Seebs a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-07-04, Stephen Sprunk<step...@sprunk.org>  wrote:
> >> Can you point out a web page which isn't displayed correctly in modern
> >> browsers and has characters encoded consistently with its charset
> >> declaration?
>
> > Probably not.
>
> >> The problems I've noticed to date have _all_ been due to either
> >> inconsistent encoding (eg. UTF-8 in a page declared as windows-1252 or
> >> vice versa) or the complete lack of a charset declaration.  In such
> >> cases, GIGO applies; that is not the fault of the browser.
>
> > Doubtless.
>
> > But the fact remains, if you use the normal tools people have lying around
> > to create pages, there's a pretty real risk of ending up with a page in
> > which apostrophes display only on Macs or only on Windows or something
> > similar.
>
> > -s
>
> That will be ALWAYS the case. There are still some terminals that do
> not have the "{" character like the IBM 3270.
>
> Happily for us some people in the eighties decided that we couldn't
> afford to remain compatible with those terminals and introduced ASCII
> terminals.
>
> My proposal is the same. If there is some older hardware/software
> combination that can't display ≠ (Alt"+" in my Mac keyboard)
> they can always translate ≠ to "!="
>
> Or you can run a simple filter and be done with it.

You have yet to explain why this is better than simply using an editor
which displays the extended characters without modifying the source.

Also, I would expect this to be a common feature among IDEs if there
were demand for it.  Are there any IDEs which do this?

>
> But there will be always some naysayers that will be aginst ANY
> improvements however minimal. This is the problem with this
> group.

I like some of your ideas, just not this one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web