 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
大家好。
Testing out unicode support here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Guess there's no unicode support.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 15/12/2011 20:28, jhu nous fit lire :
> 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
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
