 |
|
 |
Hi all, just a link for whom might be interested: this is a somewhat old and quick-and-dirty software of mine but it's up-to-date for the latest Unicode version and has some useful features. I made it mainly for my students and you can download it for free: http://www.fusisoft.it/Software/Windows/UniSpy/Default.aspx[^]. Happy new year to all, I love this site
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Pretty interesting. Is it Open Source?
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Sorry, not at this time, as it includes some core components I developed for other companies. Once found some spare time I'd like to refactor it using more modern patterns (presently the UI is a quick-and-dirty form-like WPF application, and nowadays I'm accustomed to MVVM and the like) and I'll try to publish its source too. Meantime you can download the binaries; I keep them up-to-date with each new version of Unicode (the core components have import functions for this).
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Thank you.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
May be useful for some to learn techniques, but no better than standard Character Map.
modified on Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Unneeded & waste of .net.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Michael, you can go too far.
I for, example, think your Ribbon is a waste (really, could argument it), but this is not a reason to vote "1". I rather don't vote. Your work itself may have value for some.
Normally 1-3 are used to show the contribution value is rather negative; and there are many, too many contributions which deserve such vote. Such contributions either lie (also, very usual) or contain critical mistakes, so they can mislead the readers, in other cases they attract the readers but only waste their valuable time.
I don't think for the present contribution this is a case.
After all, as your vote is questionable, you should seriously motivate it, so it would help the author to re-think the approach and improve.
In this case, this is not the Poliakoff's article is poor; your vote and comments are poor.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
I am sorry to be tough but "No vote" means that I have no opinion on the subject and therefore I can't vote.
In this case its not like that. The author not only has created something that already exists for years (charmap), but also has tried an article not appropriate for code project, for it demonstrates virtually no code, it is just a program for someone to view the unicode characters and it should be (if anywhere) to any standard windows-hosting software web site - NOT codeproject.
Codeproject is all about explaining stuff to programmers. My ribbon could be very well a waste in your opinion, but it will explain new stuff to anyone interested - even if there is only 1 or two of them. Here we have an article that does not explain anything, does not demonstrate any API , does not help any programmer at all and , as I said, its only a hint application for the casual user (which I doubt they are interested anyway) and not for a programmer.
Therefore I voted 1, not to punish the author or lower his rating, but to help him understand that codeproject is for writing articles that explain and teach stuff to programmers, not to plain users. If the author takes that advise seriously and tries writing articles that comply with CP features, I 'll be the first one that would change the vote.
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
As I already wrote, I indeed overlooked the existence of charmap. But as you clearly state this is codeproject so the aim is indeed to demonstrate some coding techniques. Contrarily to charmap, the full source code of my program is available and as indicated, this is an article for beginner. I don't claim that this is a revolutionary tool, or that it is incredible coding technique. It is just an example intended to show some simple techniques to manipulate stringbuilder, unicode, and textboxes. May be all those techniques are well known by experienced programmers but I know that beginners are always eager to get examples of working code.
Pierre
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Michael, I do respect your opinion; and I should agree your motivation is reasonable and well explained.
I only disagree with the final conclusion you cast in your vote of 1.
I also agree that "no vote" is not a valid option in this case. I did not try to convince you to avoid voting in your case, I only referred to my case: my estimate of your work.
(Let me clarify on this topic a bit. You see, my view at your work make me certain about my personal interest to your work on ribbon. My reaction was: "oh, yet another work on ribbon! what a waist! I avoid using UI elements like ribbons by all means, because this is not accessible from a keyboard, because this is a candy for lamers; I don't want to promote code used to please lamers, so I also avoid developing UI in this style; so, developing of such components is a waist and mislead others to do "cool" stuff instead and distract from the path of developing new ways of real improvement in usability; the modern trend it to make seemingly attractive eye candy with compromised usability; and I don't want to help this trend". You could probably see that I have my reasons but at the same time it can be considered purely personal and emotional; and other people might think in a very different ways. So, "no vote" is a good alternative to "do no harm". I cannot be sure my view is good for others. I would like to share to those who could potentially appreciate it (I'm not along!) but refrain from voting. I will also respect your opinion if you want to argue with me on that.)
Now, coming back to the present article. I think my criteria for down-voting (I formulated in one of my messages above, please see) are pretty reasonable: negative value of contribution.
In another message, the author explained what value he can see in his work; and the explanations are reasonable. The value is surely low (being not familiar with available Character Map is a big fault), but not negative.
Finally, don't get me wrong: I voted 1 and 2 quite well. But those votes were against really bad works which I considered as nearly crime: pure lie, fraud, offering techniques which would lead to hidden failures, kill supportability, etc. Not working at all would be the least harmful effect. I can give you good examples of such contribution. By voting 1 for the present harmless work you try to make the author on par with completely dishonest, aggressively ignorant people. (Hysterically aggressive reactions to my vote were terrifying; I even suspected cases of revenge.) By this reason I doubt your choice of the vote is adequate.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
You should know that the Unicode is not a 16-bit code.
Central part on Unicode is mapping between characters (understood as cultural entities) and mathematical integer values (code points), regardless any machine representation of the integers. The encoding is a different story; there a quite a few of them; most of them are not limited by 16 bits. First 16 bits provide mapping to Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP). Other planes are supported as well. UTF-8 encoding represent a single code point using variable number of bytes (up to 4), UTF-32 has enough values to code points reserved by the standard, and even UTF-16 which is considered fixed-size supports code points above BMP through surrogate pairs -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode[^], http://www.unicode.org/[^] for further references.
You may refer just to the encoding UTF-16 LE supported by Windows .NET to represent characters/strings in memory. This is the less known fact that the platform supports code points above BMP through surrogates since XP (if I'm not much mistaken). The support was available with Windows 2000 using some add-on and registry trick (which I already forgot).
If some code simply works with strings, there is usually not need to worry about code points above BMP. As your application works directly with separate code points, you probably should take it into account.
Thank you.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
You are right, I am aware that Unicode is not limited to 16 bits but the article scope is about the .Net framework. That's why I limited myself to the internal representation used by .net which is as you correctly stated it UTF-16 covering unicode plan 0 BMP.
Pierre
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
Came with Windows for the last 15 years at least...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Hello,
You are right,thank you. I was totally unaware of charmap.exe. That's a problem with Windows (and also Linux). They come with so many tools that there are always some gems that you are not aware of.
Well my article is still useful to explain how to make a CHR$ function in .net
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Where in the charmap can see the unicode characters (eg Japanese)?
I can not find it.
This tool is useful for me.
Spanish
¿En que lugar del charmap se pueden ver los carácteres unicode (por ejemplo, los japoneses)?
Yo no lo encuentro.
Esta herramienta es útil para mi.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
What do you mean "where"?
Charmap.exe does show all Unicode characters of all installed fonts. You looked in wrong direction.
Do yourself a favor, look again. This time, thoroughly.
I actually used it for many special symbols, Chinese, Arabic and Japanese even though I do not read or write these languages -- this is a must.
I would not mind using some more advanced tools (I used something called Babylon long time ago).
This contribution did not provide convincing alternative.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
So I have to look at each of the 375 fonts that I have installed to find what I need?
The vast majority of the fonts only shows me about 256 characters.
It really is not very convenient to use.
Is a little out of place this term.
SAKryukov wrote: Do yourself a favor
I agree in part.
SAKryukov wrote: This contribution did not provide convincing alternative.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Everyone has Arial font, I'm looking write now... I see code points from x0021 to x0FFFC.
So, what's your platform? In "Character Map", there is a Combo Box with a title "Character Set". Did you select "Unicode"?
Please select and tell us what do you see.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
I not have a combobox with a title "Character Set".
The only combobox have the title "Font".
The only font of all installed fonts that shows me the unicode characters is "Arial Unicode MS".
The Arial font only show a subset very limited of unicode characters.
Windows XP SP3
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
This is weird. I was checking up thinks using XP, too, and almost everything was installed by default. I never saw what you describe. Maybe somethings wrong with your system installation.
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
 |