JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3306 - Roadmap Snapshot
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Cuneiform and Hieroglyphs 11
The Unicode® Standard Version 13.0 – Core Specification To learn about the latest version of the Unicode Standard, see http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trade- mark claim, the designations have been printed with initial capital letters or in all capitals. Unicode and the Unicode Logo are registered trademarks of Unicode, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The authors and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this specification, but make no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained herein. The Unicode Character Database and other files are provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine applicability of information provided. © 2020 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission must be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction. For information regarding permissions, inquire at http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. For information about the Unicode terms of use, please see http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. The Unicode Standard / the Unicode Consortium; edited by the Unicode Consortium. — Version 13.0. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-936213-26-9 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/) 1. -
A Translation of the Malia Altar Stone
MATEC Web of Conferences 125, 05018 (2017) DOI: 10.1051/ matecconf/201712505018 CSCC 2017 A Translation of the Malia Altar Stone Peter Z. Revesz1,a 1 Department of Computer Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA Abstract. This paper presents a translation of the Malia Altar Stone inscription (CHIC 328), which is one of the longest known Cretan Hieroglyph inscriptions. The translation uses a synoptic transliteration to several scripts that are related to the Malia Altar Stone script. The synoptic transliteration strengthens the derived phonetic values and allows avoiding certain errors that would result from reliance on just a single transliteration. The synoptic transliteration is similar to a multiple alignment of related genomes in bioinformatics in order to derive the genetic sequence of a putative common ancestor of all the aligned genomes. 1 Introduction symbols. These attempts so far were not successful in deciphering the later two scripts. Cretan Hieroglyph is a writing system that existed in Using ideas and methods from bioinformatics, eastern Crete c. 2100 – 1700 BC [13, 14, 25]. The full Revesz [20] analyzed the evolutionary relationships decipherment of Cretan Hieroglyphs requires a consistent within the Cretan script family, which includes the translation of all known Cretan Hieroglyph texts not just following scripts: Cretan Hieroglyph, Linear A, Linear B the translation of some examples. In particular, many [6], Cypriot, Greek, Phoenician, South Arabic, Old authors have suggested translations for the Phaistos Disk, Hungarian [9, 10], which is also called rovásírás in the most famous and longest Cretan Hieroglyph Hungarian and also written sometimes as Rovas in inscription, but in general they were unable to show that English language publications, and Tifinagh. -
This Document Serves As a Summary of the UC Berkeley Script Encoding Initiative's Recent Activities. Proposals Recently Submit
L2/11‐049 TO: Unicode Technical Committee FROM: Deborah Anderson, Project Leader, Script Encoding Initiative, UC Berkeley DATE: 3 February 2011 RE: Liaison Report from UC Berkeley (Script Encoding Initiative) This document serves as a summary of the UC Berkeley Script Encoding Initiative’s recent activities. Proposals recently submitted to the UTC that have involved SEI assistance include: Afaka (Everson) [preliminary] Elbasan (Everson and Elsie) Khojki (Pandey) Khudawadi (Pandey) Linear A (Everson and Younger) [revised] Nabataean (Everson) Woleai (Everson) [preliminary] Webdings/Wingdings Ongoing work continues on the following: Anatolian Hieroglyphs (Everson) Balti (Pandey) Dhives Akuru (Pandey) Gangga Malayu (Pandey) Gondi (Pandey) Hungarian Kpelle (Everson and Riley) Landa (Pandey) Loma (Everson) Mahajani (Pandey) Maithili (Pandey) Manichaean (Everson and Durkin‐Meisterernst) Mende (Everson) Modi (Pandey) Nepali script (Pandey) Old Albanian alphabets Pahawh Hmong (Everson) Pau Cin Hau Alphabet and Pau Cin Hau Logographs (Pandey) Rañjana (Everson) Siyaq (and related symbols) (Pandey) Soyombo (Pandey) Tani Lipi (Pandey) Tolong Siki (Pandey) Warang Citi (Everson) Xawtaa Dorboljin (Mongolian Horizontal Square script) (Pandey) Zou (Pandey) Proposals for unencoded Greek papyrological signs, as well as for various Byzantine Greek and Sumero‐Akkadian characters are being discussed. A proposal for the Palaeohispanic script is also underway. Deborah Anderson is encouraging additional participation from Egyptologists for future work on Ptolemaic signs. She has received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities and support from Google to cover work through 2011. . -
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2017.08.38
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2017.08.38 http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2017/2017-08-38 BMCR 2017.08.38 on the BMCR blog Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2017.08.38 Paola Cotticelli-Kurras, Alfredo Rizza (ed.), Variation within and among Writing Systems: Concepts and Methods in the Analysis of Ancient Written Documents. LautSchriftSprache / ScriptandSound. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2017. Pp. 384. ISBN 9783954901456. €98.00. Reviewed by Anna P. Judson, Gonville & Caius College, University of Cambridge ([email protected]) Table of Contents [Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.] This book is the first of a new series, ‘LautSchriftSprache / ScriptandSound’, focusing on the field of graphemics (the study of writing systems), in particular historical graphemics. As the traditional view of writing as (merely) a way of representing speech has given way to a more nuanced understanding of writing as a different, rather than secondary, means of communication,1 graphemics has become an increasingly popular field; it is also necessarily an interdisciplinary field, since it incorporates the study not only of written texts’ linguistic features, but also broader aspects such as their visual features, material supports, and contexts of production and reading. A series dedicated to the study of graphemics across multiple academic disciplines is therefore a very welcome development. This first volume presents twenty-one papers from the third ‘LautSchriftSprache’ conference, held in Verona in 2013. In their introduction, the editors stress that the aim is to present studies of writing systems with as wide a scope as possible in terms of location, chronology, writing support, cultural context, and function. -
Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone LGR
Proposal for Ethiopic Script Root Zone LGR LGR Version 2 Date: 2017-05-17 Document version:5.2 Authors: Ethiopic Script Generation Panel Contents 1 General Information/ Overview/ Abstract ........................................................................................ 3 2 Script for which the LGR is proposed ................................................................................................ 3 3 Background on Script and Principal Languages Using It .................................................................... 4 3.1 Local Languages Using the Script .............................................................................................. 4 3.2 Geographic Territories of the Language or the Language Map of Ethiopia ................................ 7 4 Overall Development Process and Methodology .............................................................................. 8 4.1 Sources Consulted to Determine the Repertoire....................................................................... 8 4.2 Team Composition and Diversity .............................................................................................. 9 4.3 Analysis of Code Point Repertoire .......................................................................................... 10 4.4 Analysis of Code Point Variants .............................................................................................. 11 5 Repertoire .................................................................................................................................... -
Microej Documentation
MicroEJ Documentation MicroEJ Corp. Revision 155af8f7 Jul 08, 2021 Copyright 2008-2020, MicroEJ Corp. Content in this space is free for read and redistribute. Except if otherwise stated, modification is subject to MicroEJ Corp prior approval. MicroEJ is a trademark of MicroEJ Corp. All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. CONTENTS 1 MicroEJ Glossary 2 2 Overview 4 2.1 MicroEJ Editions.............................................4 2.1.1 Introduction..........................................4 2.1.2 Determine the MicroEJ Studio/SDK Version..........................5 2.2 Licenses.................................................7 2.2.1 License Manager Overview...................................7 2.2.2 Evaluation Licenses......................................7 2.2.3 Production Licenses...................................... 10 2.3 MicroEJ Runtime............................................. 15 2.3.1 Language............................................ 15 2.3.2 Scheduler............................................ 15 2.3.3 Garbage Collector....................................... 15 2.3.4 Foundation Libraries...................................... 15 2.4 MicroEJ Libraries............................................ 16 2.5 MicroEJ Central Repository....................................... 16 2.5.1 Introduction.......................................... 16 2.5.2 Use............................................... 17 2.5.3 Content Organization..................................... 17 2.5.4 Javadoc............................................ -
1 by Ellen Ndeshi Namhila 1. Africa Has a Rich and Unique Oral
THE AFRICAN PERPECTIVE: MEMORY OF THE WORLD By Ellen Ndeshi Namhila1 PREPARED FOR UNESCO MEMORY OF THE WORLD 3RD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA 19 TO 22 FEBRUARY 2008 1. INTRODUCTION Africa has a rich and unique oral, documentary, musical and artistic heritage to offer to the world, however, most of this heritage was burned down or captured during the wars of the scramble for Africa, and what had survived by accident was later intentionally destroyed or discontinued during the whole period of colonialism. In spite of this, the Memory of the World Register has so far enlisted 158 inscriptions from all over the world, out of which only 12 come from 8 African countries2. Hope was restored when on 30th January 2008, the Africa Regional Committee for Memory of the World was formed in Tshwane, South Africa. This paper will attempt to explore the reasons for the apathy from the African continent, within the framework of definitions and criteria for inscribing into the register. It will illustrate the breakdown and historical amnesia of memory and remembrance of the African heritage within the context of colonialism and its processes that have determined what was considered worth remembering as archives of enduring value, and what should be forgotten deliberately or accidentally. The paper argues that the independent African societies emerging from the colonial regimes have to make a conscious effort to revive their lost cultural values and identity. 2. A CASE STUDY: THE RECORDS OF BAMUM African had a rich heritage, well documented and well curated long before the Europeans came to colonise Africa. -
Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) —
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC2/WG2 N2845 all Final Proposed Draft Amendment (FPDAM) 1 ISO/IEC 10646:2003/Amd.1:2004 (E) Information technology — Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set (UCS) — AMENDMENT 1: Glagolitic, Coptic, Georgian and other characters In the definition of Graphic character (formerly sub- Page 1, Clause 1 Scope clause 4.20, now 4.22), insert “or a format character” In the note, update the Unicode Standard version after “control function”. from 4.0 to 4.1. Page 2, Clause 3 Normative references Page 14, Clause 19 Characters in bidirectional context Update the reference to the Unicode Bidirectional Algorithm and the Unicode Normalization Forms as Add ‘Mirrored’ before ‘Character’ in clause title and follows: replace the text of the clause by the following: Unicode Standard Annex, UAX#9, The Unicode Bidi- A class of character has special significance in the rectional Algorithm, Version 4.1.0, [date TBD]. context of bidirectional text. The interpretation and rendering of any of these characters depend on the Unicode Standard Annex, UAX#15, Unicode Nor- state related to the symmetric swapping characters malization Forms, Version 4.1.0, [date TBD]. (see clause F.2.2) and on the direction of the char- acter being rendered that are in effect at the point in the CC-data-element where the coded representa- Page 2, Clause Terms and definitions tion of the character appears. The list of these char- Insert the following text as sub-clause 4.1 and Note; acters is provided in Annex E.1. update all following sub-clause numbers accord- NOTE – That list also represents all characters which have ingly. -
Name Hierarchy Methods Enums and Flags
Pango::Gravity(3pm) User Contributed Perl Documentation Pango::Gravity(3pm) NAME Pango::Gravity − represents the orientation of glyphs in a segment of text HIERARCHY Glib::Enum +−−−−Pango::Gravity METHODS gravity = Pango::Gravity::get_for_matrix ($matrix) • $matrix (Pango::Matrix) gravity = Pango::Gravity::get_for_script ($script, $base_gravity, $hint) • $script (Pango::Script) • $base_gravity (Pango::Gravity) • $hint (Pango::GravityHint) boolean = Pango::Gravity::is_vertical ($gravity) • $gravity (Pango::Gravity) double = Pango::Gravity::to_rotation ($gravity) • $gravity (Pango::Gravity) ENUMS AND FLAGS enum Pango::Gravity • ’south’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_SOUTH’ • ’east’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_EAST’ • ’north’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_NORTH’ • ’west’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_WEST’ • ’auto’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_AUTO’ enum Pango::GravityHint • ’natural’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_HINT_NATURAL’ • ’strong’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_HINT_STRONG’ • ’line’ / ’PANGO_GRAVITY_HINT_LINE’ enum Pango::Script • ’invalid−code’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_INVALID_CODE’ • ’common’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_COMMON’ • ’inherited’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_INHERITED’ • ’arabic’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_ARABIC’ • ’armenian’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_ARMENIAN’ • ’bengali’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_BENGALI’ • ’bopomofo’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_BOPOMOFO’ • ’cherokee’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_CHEROKEE’ • ’coptic’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_COPTIC’ • ’cyrillic’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_CYRILLIC’ • ’deseret’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_DESERET’ • ’devanagari’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_DEVANAGARI’ • ’ethiopic’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_ETHIOPIC’ • ’georgian’ / ’PANGO_SCRIPT_GEORGIAN’ perl v5.28.0 2018-10-29 1 Pango::Gravity(3pm) User Contributed -
Writing in Anatolia: the Origins of the Anatolian Hieroglyphs and the Introductions of the Cuneiform Script 1
Altoriental. Forsch., Akademie Verlag, 39 (2012) 2, 287–315 Willemijn Waal Writing in Anatolia: The Origins of the Anatolian Hieroglyphs and the Introductions of the Cuneiform Script 1 Abstract This article argues that the Anatolian hieroglyphic script, which is generally thought to have been an invention of the second half of the second millennium BCE, has its origins already in the late third/early second millennium BCE. The argument that Anatolian hieroglyphs are much older than hitherto assumed is based on a wide array of evidence, such as (signs on) seals and textual data from both Ana- tolia and the Aegean. These data imply that Anatolian hieroglyphs, like virtually any other writing system, started out as a simple pictographic script used for basic economic and administrative records and over time developed into a full-fledged writing system, rather than being ‘invented’ in the Hittite Period. It is demonstrated that the enigmatic is.urtum-documents found in Old Assyrian texts refer to documents written in Ana- tolian hieroglyphs, similar to the gisˇ.hur/US. URTUM/gulzattar documents in the Hittite Period.These docu- ments, which have not been preserved because they were written on the perishable material wood, contained those types of texts that are conspicuously absent from the Old Assyrian and Hittite Periods. Since the Anatolians already had a script of their own, the cuneiform script never became firmly rooted within Anatolian society, and its usage was restricted to certain domains. This would explain why the cuneiform script was introduced (and subsequently abandoned) twice in Bronze Age Anatolia, whereas the Anatolian hieroglyphs continued to be used well into the first millennium BCE. -
Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact
Universal Scripts Project: Statement of Significance and Impact The Universal Scripts Project expands the capabilities of the Internet by providing digital access to text materials from a variety of modern and historical cultures whose writing systems are not currently included in the international standard for electronic representation of scripts, known as Unicode. People who write in these scripts find it difficult to use email, compose and send documents electronically, and post documents on the World Wide Web, without relying on nonstandard fonts or other cumbersome workarounds, and are therefore left out of the “technological revolution.” About 66 scripts are currently included in the Unicode standard, but over 80 are not. Some 40 of these missing scripts belong to modern linguistic minorities in Africa, the Indian subcontinent, China, and other countries in Southeast Asia; about 40 are scripts of historical importance. The project’s goal for 2007–2008 is to provide the standards bodies overseeing character sets with proposals for 15 scripts to be included in the Unicode standard. The scripts selected for inclusion include 9 modern minority scripts and 6 historical scripts. The need is urgent, because the entire process, from first proposal to acceptance, typically takes from 2 to 5 years, and support among corporations and national bodies for adding more scripts to Unicode is uncertain. If the proposals are not submitted soon, these user communities will not be able to use their scripts in the near future. The scripts selected for this grant have established scholarly and user-community connections, which will help guarantee that the proposals meet the users' needs. -
The Anatolian Subgroup of Indo-European in the Light of the “Minor” Languages
The Anatolian Subgroup of Indo-European in the Light of the “Minor” Languages H. Craig Melchert Carrboro NC Almost immediately following Bedřich Hrozný’s successful identification of Hittite as an Indo-European language, there was an early recognition that Hittite (Nesite) was not the only Indo-European language in Anatolia. Forrer (1919) already identified Luvian and Palaic as distinct languages among Hattusha texts, and Cuneiform Luvian was recognized as closely related to Hittite by Hrozný (1920: 35–39 & 55) and Forrer (1922: 215–223, correcting 1919: 1035). Forrer (1922: 241–247) tentatively added Palaic as also related. The affiliation of the language of the “Hittite hieroglyphs” was established by the early 1930s: see Forrer 1932: 59 and passim, Meriggi 1932: 10 and 42–57, and Hrozný 1933: 77–XX). Lycian and Lydian were shown to be Indo-European with special affinity with Hittite-Luvian-Palaic by Meriggi (1936a, 1936b), though this was not universally acknowledged. The concept of an “Anatolian” subgroup of Indo-European was thus existent before the Second World War, even if that label would not become standard for many decades. However, the full impact of the “minor” Anatolian languages on the history of Hittite and its relationship to the rest of Indo-European was long delayed. Handbooks on the historical grammar of Hittite published from the 1930s to the 1970s largely explicated Hittite directly from some model of Proto-Indo- European, treating the other languages very selectively or in appendices: see e.g. Sturtevant 1933, Sturtevant-Hahn 1951, Kronasser 1956 and 1966, and Oettinger 1979. Hittite still played an outsized role in the more comprehensive treatment of 2 Kammenhuber 1969.