Talk:List of cuneiform signs: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:49, 24 August 2007

Note that the Borger number given is from Borger 1981. Borger 2003 uses a completely different numbering scheme, including 907 signs. This list should, in the long term, be expanded to list all Borger 2003 signs and give a concordance of Borger 1981 to Borger 2003. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this over at Unicode cuneiform. This list may be re-generated from there later. dab (ᛏ) 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PNG cuneiform sign images

See my comment on Talk:Cuneiform_script#Progress_on_cuneiform_sign_images ... AnonMoos 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode characters

Wouldn't it be useful to augment (or replace) the unicode code point column with the actual characters in the spirit of "U+12109" -> "U+12109 𒄉" (with cuneiform template)? This could be done programmatically in some ten minutes, but since I don't want to be reverted, I wait for feedback here. Is there a preference to numerical character references, or should I use utf-8 encoded characters?

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==PNG cuneiform sign images==
 See my comment on [[Talk:Cuneiform_script#Progress_on_cuneiform_sign_images]] ... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
+==Unicode characters==
+Wouldn't it be useful to augment (or replace) the unicode code point column with the actual characters in the spirit of "U+12109" -> "U+12109 {{cuneiform|&#x12109;}}" (with cuneiform template)? This could be done programmatically in some ten minutes, but since I don't want to be reverted, I wait for feedback here. Is there a preference to numerical character references, or should I use utf-8 encoded characters?