Talk:Unicode

From RogueBasin
Revision as of 07:46, 1 April 2009 by Purple flayer (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This looks like a direct rip from WikiPedia. Which is fine. But someone should weed out all the wikipedia hot links, no?

Adding some RL-specific content (like dev issues relating to use of unicode) would be nice too. -user:Shedletsky

Yessir. It was a rip from dictionary.com before it was a rip from wikipedia, so it needed to be changed. I wasn't too interested in rogue-ifying it at the time, so I left it as is. [[User:M|–MT]] 02:24, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)

This article is waaaaay to long, and waaaaay to unrelated to RL development to be left in it's current form. I think someone (Unicode-wise) should rip this article so it fits one page (or eventualy two). This is one of the fundamental laws of software engeenering -- never duplicate data - why copy from wikipedia if you can provide a link to it?? --Kisielewicz 05:19, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Hehe. Yes, a link would work well. I pasted it in because I thought it would be easier for an editor to hack things out of it than write stuff up. [[User:M|–MT]] 05:43, 21 Sep 2005 (CEST)

I've wiped it and written it from scratch with a Roguelike slant. I think we should avoid Wikipedia rips because it is duplicating information. We won't get the updates to the Wikipedia entry without having to handle merging any roguelike specific stuff properly. --JeffLait 22:26, 30 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Good point. And good rewrite. [[User:M|–MT]] 06:33, 1 Oct 2005 (CEST)

I do not agree with the change about the size of the Unicode character set. The Unicode character set is 21bits no matter what broken encoding you are using. Among the official encodings, only UCS-2 is limited to the Basic Multilingual Plane. In all cases, it is plainly wrong to say that the Unicode character set is of varying size. --Stof 14:29, 2 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Perhaps "which may be encoded to various sizes" would have been a better wording. The Unicode character set is not 21 bits (bits have little to do with it, unless we're talking about the encoding, and you say we are not). But no matter: I've edited the article, hopefully to our mutual satisfaction. [[User:M|–MT]] 01:55, 3 Oct 2005 (CEST)

That new version is very good. It's true that Unicode doesn't have 2^21 code points available but from a certain point of view, it is coded on 21 bits because with less you can't identify each available code point. --Stof 10:36, 3 Oct 2005 (CEST)


I find it funny the change of a-with-a-squiggle to a-with-a-hat. I actually meant a-with-a-squiggle, sort of like ? but with an a underneath. I don't know if any code page actually defines that, however, so the change is more sensible. --JeffLait 15:51, 3 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Thank you Stof, and yes Jeff, I couldn't find a character like that to use as an example, but an a-with-a-hat was readily available :) [[User:M|–MT]] 20:21, 3 Oct 2005 (CEST)

You were looking for that one I presume : ? Thanks for the Compose key, nothing is impossible ;) --Stof 17:43, 4 Oct 2005 (CEST)

Ah, that's the one. Unfortunately, since I use windows, I was forced to use the ascii-based alt-numpad combination. [[User:M|–MT]] 20:09, 4 Oct 2005 (CEST)

This wiki does not seem to support Unicode

Just look at what's happened to the article text.

Non-english languages found that their fancy a-with-a-hat-on-top (i.e. ???) 
could not be represented. 

PaulBlay

Indeed, so I have changed the ?queries? to HTML entieties. :) But I thought mediawiki could support unicode? So perhaps somebody has accidentally mixed it up when editing. Anyway it is all fine now. Purple flayer 08:46, 1 April 2009 (CEST)
Personal tools