Help talk:Format

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] New Symbols

I thought you might want to add ♥=♥, ♣=♣, and ♠=♠-- Benol, aka Coach B 03:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Benol, thank you for the input, but these pages are no longer within my user space. There are in a public namespace that is editable by everyone. As long as you follow the current format, you are welcome to add more. As for myself, if no one else wants to tackle the emmense number of symbols there are, I will personally fill in the rest. I believe there are upwards of 3000. — Lapper (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
3000 more, eh? Well, if you can add one a minute, that should only take you... 50 hours to do 'em all, yeah? --DorianGray
Most lists are incomplete, skipping from 400 to 900, then from 900 to 3000, then from 3000 to 8 or 9000, but I'm confident that if I found almost 200 more symbols than reqularly listed (400 to 560), then there are surely more characters. Perhaps not three thousand, but we'll see how it turns out. — Lapper (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I just made my day by finding out how to do the little t-with-a-cedille that's used in Romanian (e.g. mulţumesc)! (I also found out that technically the cedille isn't the most preferable; it's supposed to be more like a comma. There's a code for that, but it seemed to stop working when I copied from the Big Wiki over here.) —AbdiViklas 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've completed through 999. It probably goes a lot farther than that, though. — Lapper (talk) 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? --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 :) --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. --Stux 22:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
How many are there, technically? smileyface.PNG11945 (Talk/Ctrbs) 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. — Lapper (talk) 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. --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 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 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 charmap for the rest. --phlip TC 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. — Lapper (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools