This information is the code point used to encode the character in the document.
With this information, the font selected for printing will be queried to provide a glyph shape for this character. Some modern font formats e. OpenType implement a sophisticated mapping from a code point to the glyph selected, which might take into account surrounding characters to create ligatures where necessary and the language or even area this character is printed for to accommodate different typesetting traditions and differences in the usage of glyphs.
A TEI document might provide some of the information that is required for this process, for example by identifying the linguistic context with the xml:lang attribute.
The selection of fonts and sizes is usually done in a stylesheet, while the actual layout of a page is determined by the typesetting system used. Similarly, if a document is rendered for publication on the Web, information of this kind can be shipped with the document in a stylesheet. XML was designed with Unicode in mind as its means of representing abstract characters. It is possible to use other character encoding schemes, but in general they are best avoided, as you run the risk of encountering compatibility issues with different XML processors, as well as potential difficulties with rendering their output.
Doing so merely means that processors will treat the content therein as if it were UTF-8, and may fail to process the document if it is not.
- Stupendous, Miserable City: Pasolinis Rome!
- HUMAN UNIQUENESS.
- The Lace Makers of Narsapur?
- The elements of a Python program — Python for designers.
- Naturbanization: New identities and processes for rural-natural areas?
- Codes and Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties - Google книги.
- Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States!
The principles of Unicode are judiciously tempered with pragmatism. This means, among other things, that the actual repertoire of characters which the standard encodes, especially those parts dating from its earlier days, include a number of items which on a strict interpretation of the Unicode Consortium's theoretical approach should not have been regarded as abstract characters in their own right.
Some of these characters are grouped together into a code-point regions assigned to compatibility characters. Ligatures are a case in point. Ligatures e. However, by the time the Unicode standard was first being debated, it had become common practice to include single glyphs representing the more common ligatures in the repertoires of some typesetting devices and high-end printers, and for the coded character sets built into those devices to use a single code point for such glyphs, even though they represent two distinct abstract characters.
So as to increase the acceptance of Unicode among the makers and users of such devices, it was agreed that some such pseudo-characters should be incorporated into the standard as compatibility characters. Nevertheless, if a project requires the presence of such ligatured forms to be encoded, this should normally be done via markup, not by the use of a compatibility character. That way, the presence of the ligature can still be identified and, if desired, rendered visually where appropriate, but indexing and retrieval software will treat the code points in the document as a simple sequential occurrence of the two constituent characters concerned and so correctly align their semantics with non-ligatured equivalents.
A digraph is an atomic orthographic unit representing an abstract character in its own right, not purely an amalgamation of glyphs, and indexing and retrieval software will need to treat it as such. Where a digraph occurs in a source text, it should normally be encoded using the appropriate code point for the single abstract character which it represents.
The treatment of characters with diacritical marks within Unicode shows a similar combination of rigour and pragmatism. It is obvious enough that it would be feasible to represent many characters with diacritical marks in Latin and some other scripts by a sequence of code points, where one code point designated the base character and the remainder represented one or more diacritical marks that were to be combined with the base character to produce an appropriate glyphic rendering of the abstract character concerned.
From its earliest phase, the Unicode Consortium espoused this view in theory but was prepared in practice to compromise by assigning single code points to precomposed characters which were already commonly assigned a single distinctive code point in existing encoding schemes. This means, however, that for quite a large number of commonly-occurring abstract characters, Unicode has two different, but logically and semantically equivalent encodings: a precomposed single code point, and a code point sequence of a base character plus one or more combining diacritics.
Scripts more recently added to Unicode no longer exhibit this code-point duplication in current practice no new precomposed characters are defined where the use of combining characters is possible but this does nothing to remove the problem caused by the duplications from older character sets that have been permanently embodied in Unicode.
Together with essentially analogous issues arising from the encoding of certain East Asian ideographs. This duplication gives rise to the need to practice normalization of Unicode documents. Normalization is the process of ensuring that a given abstract character is represented in one way only in a given Unicode document or document collection. The Unicode Consortium provides four standard normalization forms, of which the Normalization Form C NFC seems to be most appropriate for text encoding projects. The NFC, as far as possible, defines conversions for all base characters followed by one or more combining characters into the corresponding precomposed characters.
It is important that every Unicode-based project should agree on, consistently implement, and fully document a comprehensive and coherent normalization practice. As well as ensuring data integrity within a given project, a consistently implemented and properly documented normalization policy is essential for successful document interchange. While different input methods may themselves differ in what normalization form they use, any programming language that implements Unicode will provide mechanisms for converting between normalization forms, so it is easy in practice to ensure that all documents in a project are in a consistent form, even if different methods are used to enter data.
In addition to the Universal Character Set itself, the Unicode Consortium maintains a database of additional character semantics This includes names for each character code point and normative properties for it. Character properties, as given in this database, determine the semantics and thus the intended use of a code point or character.
The database also contains information that might be needed for correctly processing this character for different purposes. It is an important reference in determining which Unicode code point to use to encode a certain character. In addition to the printed documentation and lists made available by the Unicode consortium, the information it contains may also be accessed by a number of search systems over the Web e. Where a project undertakes local definition of characters with code points in the PUA, it is desirable that any relevant additional information about the characters concerned should be recorded in an analogous way, as further discussed under 5 Characters, Glyphs, and Writing Modes.
In theory it should not be necessary for encoders to have any knowledge of the various ways in which Unicode code points can be represented internally within a document or in the memory of a processing system, but experience shows that problems frequently arise in this area because of mistaken practice or defective software, and in order to recognize the resulting symptoms and correct their causes an outline knowledge of certain aspects of Unicode internal representation is desirable.
Current practice for documents to be transmitted via the Web recommends only UTF The code points assigned by Unicode 3. However, many of the code points for characters most commonly used in Latin scripts can be represented in one byte only and the vast majority of the remainder which are in common use including those assigned from the most frequently used PUA range can be expressed in two bytes alone.
In the Light of Evolution: Volume IV: The Human Condition.
UTF-8 is a variable length encoding: the more significant bits there are in the underlying code point or in everyday terminology the bigger the number used to represent the character , the more bytes UTF-8 uses to encode it. What makes UTF-8 particularly attractive for representing Latin scripts, explaining its status as the default encoding in XML documents, is that all code points that can be expressed in seven or fewer bits the values in the original ASCII character set are also encoded as the same seven or fewer bits and therefore in a single byte in UTF That is why a document which is actually encoded in pure 7-bit ASCII can be fed to an XML processor without alteration and without its encoding being explicitly declared: the processor will regard it as being in the UTF-8 representation of Unicode and be able to handle it correctly on that basis.
However, even within the domain of Latin-based scripts, some projects have documents which use characters from 8 bit extensions to ASCII, e. Abstract characters that have a single byte code point where the highest bit is set that is, they have a decimal numeric representation between and are encoded in ISOn as a single byte with the same value as the code point.
But in UTF-8 code-point values inside that range are expressed as a two byte sequence. That is to say, the abstract character in question is no longer represented in the file or in memory by the same number as its code-point value: it is transformed hence the T in UTF into a sequence of two different numbers.
Now as a side-effect of the way such UTF-8 sequences are derived from the underlying code-point value, many of the single-byte eight-bit values employed in ISOn encodings are illegal in UTF The author derives marking values from speech act questionnaires distributed to these two groups, but she fails to discuss any of the extensive literature questioning the reliability of speech act and associated data collected in questionnaires. Putting aside this concern, the use of the term "marked" to explain L2 errors is not in itself explanatory.
The reader who expects an explanatory model of linguistic choice may be disappointed in this volume to the extent that the MM is not consistently applied throughout the studies. Taken as a whole, however, the volume offers a stimulating collection of papers on a variety of topics. Steven Roger Fischer. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics Oxford: Clarendon Press, Carved in outline form during the first half of the 19th century by specially trained experts, these wooden tablets contain multiple texts of the sacred and profane oral traditions of the island, includ- ing origin chants, genealogies, love charms, and historical narratives.
Gen- erations of voyagers, missionaries, travelers, and scholars have puzzled over the "mystery" of these glyphs ever since they were brought to Western attention in Although early informants indicated that the tablets cor- respond to the Old Rapanui language, the task of decipherment has been blocked because no one has been able to locate a clear parallel between a known oral text and a particular tablet portion.
Purported "translations" of several of the tablets provided at the request of missionaries have proved to be creative performances rather than direct readings.
Codes and Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties.
If the tablets do record ancient Rapanui oral tradition, the tablets themselves have not ap- peared in any archaeological contexts, and the glyphs incised on wood do not correspond to the numerous stone carvings found all over the island. Related Papers. Corpus linguistics as a method for the decipherment of rongorongo Mres Dissertation. By Martyn Harris. Self-enhancing codeswitching as interactional power.
By Carol Myers-Scotton. Language style as identity construction: A footing and framing approach.
Table Of Contents
By Natalie Schilling. Oxford, By Konstantin Pozdniakov. Download pdf. Remember me on this computer.
Home Sign In Sign Up. Country UAE. All Categories.
English Language and Linguistics and Management - BA (Hons) - Canterbury - The University of Kent
Quantity 1. Easy Returns Free returns on eligible items so you can shop with ease. Secure Shopping Your data is always protected.
Related Codes and Consequences: Choosing Linguistic Varieties
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved