Help talk:Format - Revision history

Lapper: reply

Lapper — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:42:22 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 21 December 2005
Line 16:		Line 16:
	:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::::The only ranges which should be blanked out are 00-1F, 7F-9F (both control characters) and D800-DFFF (to avoid ambiguity with UTF-16), plus of course any actual whitespace characters (space, non-breaking space, etc) - any other blanks are simply because the font you're using doesn't have glyphs for those characters (I'm unaware of any fonts which include ''all'' of Unicode). While adding all the [[Wikipedia:Mapping of Unicode characters\|million-odd code points]] to the chart could be fun, it would be a waste of time and would make the page obscenely large and take ages to download. I have an HTML file I made with all the characters from Unicode 4.1 (just the assigned ones, not all the million), along with their names etc - it's 6MB of HTML and Firefox chews just under 300MB of RAM while it's rendering it (if you think your computer can handle it, grab it [http://members.lycos.co.uk/phlipping/redirectJS.php?url=unicode.zip here]). In short: bad idea, stick to the blocks people are likely to want to use &ndash Latin-1 (00-FF), maybe General Punctuation (2000-206F) and point people to <code>charmap</code> for the rest. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		::::::The only ranges which should be blanked out are 00-1F, 7F-9F (both control characters) and D800-DFFF (to avoid ambiguity with UTF-16), plus of course any actual whitespace characters (space, non-breaking space, etc) - any other blanks are simply because the font you're using doesn't have glyphs for those characters (I'm unaware of any fonts which include ''all'' of Unicode). While adding all the [[Wikipedia:Mapping of Unicode characters\|million-odd code points]] to the chart could be fun, it would be a waste of time and would make the page obscenely large and take ages to download. I have an HTML file I made with all the characters from Unicode 4.1 (just the assigned ones, not all the million), along with their names etc - it's 6MB of HTML and Firefox chews just under 300MB of RAM while it's rendering it (if you think your computer can handle it, grab it [http://members.lycos.co.uk/phlipping/redirectJS.php?url=unicode.zip here]). In short: bad idea, stick to the blocks people are likely to want to use &ndash Latin-1 (00-FF), maybe General Punctuation (2000-206F) and point people to <code>charmap</code> for the rest. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::::::Phlip is right. We should definatly trim this to digestible proportions. Where we draw the line for cutting it off I'm not sure. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 14:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Phlip: /* New Symbols */

Phlip — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:22:03 GMT

New Symbols

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 15 December 2005
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
-	::::::The only ranges which should be blanked out are 00-1F, 7F-9F (both control characters) and D800-DFFF (to avoid ambiguity with UTF-16), plus of course any actual whitespace characters (space, non-breaking space, etc) - any other blanks are simply because the font you're using doesn't have glyphs for those characters (I'm unaware of any fonts which include ''all'' of Unicode). While adding all the [[Wikipedia:Mapping of Unicode characters\|million-odd code points]] to the chart could be fun, it would be a waste of time and would make the page obscenely large and take ages to download. I have an HTML file I made with all the characters from Unicode 4.1 (just the assigned ones, not all the million), along with their names etc - it's 6MB of HTML and Firefox chews just under 300MB of RAM while it's rendering it. In short: bad idea, stick to the blocks people are likely to want to use &ndash Latin-1 (00-FF), maybe General Punctuation (2000-206F) and point people to <code>charmap</code> for the rest. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)	+	::::::The only ranges which should be blanked out are 00-1F, 7F-9F (both control characters) and D800-DFFF (to avoid ambiguity with UTF-16), plus of course any actual whitespace characters (space, non-breaking space, etc) - any other blanks are simply because the font you're using doesn't have glyphs for those characters (I'm unaware of any fonts which include ''all'' of Unicode). While adding all the [[Wikipedia:Mapping of Unicode characters\|million-odd code points]] to the chart could be fun, it would be a waste of time and would make the page obscenely large and take ages to download. I have an HTML file I made with all the characters from Unicode 4.1 (just the assigned ones, not all the million), along with their names etc - it's 6MB of HTML and Firefox chews just under 300MB of RAM while it's rendering it (if you think your computer can handle it, grab it [http://members.lycos.co.uk/phlipping/redirectJS.php?url=unicode.zip here]). In short: bad idea, stick to the blocks people are likely to want to use &ndash Latin-1 (00-FF), maybe General Punctuation (2000-206F) and point people to <code>charmap</code> for the rest. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Phlip: /* New Symbols */ +opinion

Phlip — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:11:47 GMT

New Symbols: +opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 15 December 2005
Line 15:		Line 15:
	::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	::::::The only ranges which should be blanked out are 00-1F, 7F-9F (both control characters) and D800-DFFF (to avoid ambiguity with UTF-16), plus of course any actual whitespace characters (space, non-breaking space, etc) - any other blanks are simply because the font you're using doesn't have glyphs for those characters (I'm unaware of any fonts which include ''all'' of Unicode). While adding all the [[Wikipedia:Mapping of Unicode characters\|million-odd code points]] to the chart could be fun, it would be a waste of time and would make the page obscenely large and take ages to download. I have an HTML file I made with all the characters from Unicode 4.1 (just the assigned ones, not all the million), along with their names etc - it's 6MB of HTML and Firefox chews just under 300MB of RAM while it's rendering it. In short: bad idea, stick to the blocks people are likely to want to use &ndash Latin-1 (00-FF), maybe General Punctuation (2000-206F) and point people to <code>charmap</code> for the rest. {{User:Phlip/sig}} 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Stux: /* New Symbols */ reply for Lapper

Stux — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:56:35 GMT

New Symbols: reply for Lapper

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 15 December 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::::How many are there, technically? {{User:Smileyface11945/sig}} 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		::::How many are there, technically? {{User:Smileyface11945/sig}} 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)		::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::::Oh. (I take it you are running a mac Lapper? OS X?) Anyway, several of those characters appear normal on my screen (namely the last row for example). Others also appear blank or with questionmarks. Due to these inconsistencies, I think it would be best if it is left as it is and let the user see them as blanks. That or leave some kind of note. (Either way it is very strange since these are supposed to be "standard"). The only two that i know are universally blank are 30 and 31. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 14:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Lapper: /* New Symbols */ reply

Lapper — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:26:13 GMT

New Symbols: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:26, 15 December 2005
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	::::How many are there, technically? {{User:Smileyface11945/sig}} 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		::::How many are there, technically? {{User:Smileyface11945/sig}} 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	::::I kind of blacked out those squares on purpose, Stux. Those symbols show up as blank on a Macintosh. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 13:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Smileyface11945: /* New Symbols */ q

Smileyface11945 — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:20:37 GMT

New Symbols: q

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:20, 14 December 2005
Line 12:		Line 12:
	::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	::::How many are there, technically? {{User:Smileyface11945/sig}} 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stux: /* New Symbols */

Stux — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:19:17 GMT

New Symbols

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 14 December 2005
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stux: /* New Symbols */ added more symbols

Stux — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:10:54 GMT

New Symbols: added more symbols

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:10, 14 December 2005
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stux: /* New Symbols */ oh and I forgot to ask...

Stux — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:47:40 GMT

New Symbols: oh and I forgot to ask...

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 14 December 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)	+	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Stux: /* New Symbols */ suggestion

Stux — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:47:13 GMT

New Symbols: suggestion

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 14 December 2005
Line 9:		Line 9:

	Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 14 December 2005
Line 11:		Line 11:
	:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		:Hey couldn't this be done programmatically? Just have a program output the table contents to your hearts desire. That can easily be done (for me, not this week I still have much to do)... Oh, and why do some of them black the entire cell in your table? --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 21:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
	::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)		::Okay so the program wasn't that hard to write. Now my guess is... aren't these codes supposed to represent UNICODE characters? UNICODE uses 32 bits/character which means there would be 4billion possible combinations :) --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
		+	:::Ok, i'm done. I removed the black squares and removed the 2000's page. If you want to list all the symbols up to 10000, just let me know, snap your fingers and i'll make the appropriate tables. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)