>> Guess there's no unicode support.

> Well, not via html entities.
> 22823 = 0x5927 (CJK unified) 大
> 23478 = 0x5BB6 (CJK unified) 家
> 22909 = 0x597D (CJK unified) 好

I've always wondered how the hell people manage to type in characters 
which aren't actually on the keyboard.

Sure, you can do that thing where you hold down ALT and type in the code 
number for the character you want. If you happen to be good at 
memorising vast lists of cryptic code numbers, that is. :-P Surely there 
must be some more efficient way?

Post a reply to this message

jhu <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> 大家好。

> Testing out unicode support here.

  That's not unicode. It's XML.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 16/12/2011 10:22, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Guess there's no unicode support.
> 
>> Well, not via html entities.
>> 22823 = 0x5927 (CJK unified) 大
>> 23478 = 0x5BB6 (CJK unified) 家
>> 22909 = 0x597D (CJK unified) 好
> 
> I've always wondered how the hell people manage to type in characters
> which aren't actually on the keyboard.
> 
> Sure, you can do that thing where you hold down ALT and type in the code
> number for the character you want. If you happen to be good at
> memorising vast lists of cryptic code numbers, that is. :-P Surely there
> must be some more efficient way?

Well, vi (gvim & co) have another shortcut than Alt+ ...

It's ctrl+v u 5 9 2 7 for the first one!
copy & paste is ok in thunderbird.

For the CJK people, usually the keyboard is paired with an input
"driver" which display the alternative until you select one.
(you need to know how to vocalise it, as you enter it in roman..)
There is also keyboard with the graphical clues as key (the number of
graphical keys/clues for CJK is reduced, the extension might be longer)

-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.<br/><br/>


Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/12/2011 12:27 PM, Warp wrote:

>    That's not unicode. It's XML.

Perhaps you mean SGML? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 16/12/2011 12:27 PM, Warp wrote:

> >    That's not unicode. It's XML.

> Perhaps you mean SGML? ;-)

  I don't think that makes it non-XML.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>>>     That's not unicode. It's XML.
>
>> Perhaps you mean SGML? ;-)
>
>    I don't think that makes it non-XML.

Depends on your perspective.

XML is a subset of SGML, and therefore every XML fragment is also an 
SGML fragment.

On the other hand, nothing about the fragment specifically suggests XML, 
and not one of the multitude of over SGML subsets. In the face of such 
uncertainty, you might argue that describing it as SGML entails the 
fewest assumptions.

But now we're just splitting hairs...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>>     That's not unicode. It's XML.
> >
> >> Perhaps you mean SGML? ;-)
> >
> >    I don't think that makes it non-XML.

> Depends on your perspective.

> XML is a subset of SGML, and therefore every XML fragment is also an 
> SGML fragment.

> On the other hand, nothing about the fragment specifically suggests XML, 
> and not one of the multitude of over SGML subsets. In the face of such 
> uncertainty, you might argue that describing it as SGML entails the 
> fewest assumptions.

  But how likely is it that the original poster had SGML in mind when he
wrote those codes instead of XML? Who uses the entirety of SGML nowadays?

> But now we're just splitting hairs...

  But that's the fun of it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Depends on your perspective.

>    But how likely is it that the original poster had SGML in mind when he
> wrote those codes instead of XML? Who uses the entirety of SGML nowadays?

It's quite unlikely he intended SGML. It's completely possible he 
intended HTML, however.

Note that XHTML is a subset of XML, but HTML is not. (HTML for example 
allows unclosed tags, which are strictly prohibited by XML.)

The intersection of the set of valid XML and HTML fragments has no 
official title that I'm aware of, and the smallest superset of that 
which does have a name is SGML. Hence, SGML is the least-general named 
set. QED.

>> But now we're just splitting hairs...
>
>    But that's the fun of it.

And people think I'm strange because I write computer programs in a 
high-order pure-functional programming language with non-strict 
evaluation semantics and a post-Milner-Hindley type system... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/16/2011 1:22, Invisible wrote:
> I've always wondered how the hell people manage to type in characters which
> aren't actually on the keyboard.

For chinese, you can basically type in the english spelling of the 
character, to a vague approximation.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of demo on youtube.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Depends on your perspective.
>
> >    But how likely is it that the original poster had SGML in mind when he
> > wrote those codes instead of XML? Who uses the entirety of SGML nowadays?
>
> It's quite unlikely he intended SGML. It's completely possible he
> intended HTML, however.
>
> Note that XHTML is a subset of XML, but HTML is not. (HTML for example
> allows unclosed tags, which are strictly prohibited by XML.)
>
> The intersection of the set of valid XML and HTML fragments has no
> official title that I'm aware of, and the smallest superset of that
> which does have a name is SGML. Hence, SGML is the least-general named
> set. QED.

I'm using whatever input method Ubuntu provides. For Windows, Google also
provides a pin yin input method. It works on message boards on the internet,
google searches, and office documents. Although in the attached screenshot, you
can see the browser interpreting some of the characters correctly.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'screenshot.png' (82 KB)

Preview of image 'screenshot.png'