romikgosai/squad_modified huggingface dataset:
The Consortium first published The Unicode Standard (ISBN 0-321-18578-1) in 1991 and continues to develop standards based on that original work. The latest version of the standard, Unicode 8.0, was released in June 2015 and is available from the consortium's website. The last of the major versions (versions x.0) to be published in book form was Unicode 5.0 (ISBN 0-321-48091-0), but since Unicode 6.0 the full text of the standard is no longer being published in book form. In 2012, however, it was announced that only the core specification for Unicode version 6.1 would be made available as a 692-page print-on-demand paperback. Unlike the previous major version printings of the Standard, the print-on-demand core specification does not include any code charts or standard annexes, but the entire standard, including the core specification, will still remain freely available on the Unicode website.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does the print on demand, core version not include? 
A: any code charts or standard annexes', '
Q: When was the Unicode Standard first published? 
A: 1991', '
Q: When was the latest version, Unicode 8.0, released?
A: June 2015', '
Q: What was the last major version of Unicode to be published in book form? 
A: Unicode 5.0', '
Q: What year was it announced that only the core specification for Unicode would be printed in physical form?
A: 2012']
The Unicode Roadmap Committee (Michael Everson, Rick McGowan, and Ken Whistler) maintain the list of scripts that are candidates or potential candidates for encoding and their tentative code block assignments on the Unicode Roadmap page of the Unicode Consortium Web site. For some scripts on the Roadmap, such as Jurchen, Nü Shu, and Tangut, encoding proposals have been made and they are working their way through the approval process. For others scripts, such as Mayan and Rongorongo, no proposal has yet been made, and they await agreement on character repertoire and other details from the user communities involved.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Michael Everson, Rick McGowan, and Ken Whistler make up what group?
A: Unicode Roadmap Committee', '
Q: What does the Unicode Roadmap Commmittee do? 
A: maintain the list of scripts that are candidates or potential candidates for encoding', '
Q: What proposal has been made for the Mayan script? 
A: no proposal has yet been made', '
Q: Where does the Unicode Roadmap Committee post information on these scripts?
A: Unicode Consortium Web site']
Unicode defines two mapping methods: the Unicode Transformation Format (UTF) encodings, and the Universal Coded Character Set (UCS) encodings. An encoding maps (possibly a subset of) the range of Unicode code points to sequences of values in some fixed-size range, termed code values. The numbers in the names of the encodings indicate the number of bits per code value (for UTF encodings) or the number of bytes per code value (for UCS encodings). UTF-8 and UTF-16 are probably the most commonly used encodings. UCS-2 is an obsolete subset of UTF-16; UCS-4 and UTF-32 are functionally equivalent.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many mapping methods does Unicode define?
A: two', '
Q: What are the two mapping methods that Unicode defines?
A: Unicode Transformation Format (UTF) encodings, and the Universal Coded Character Set (UCS) encodings', '
Q: What do numbers in the names of the encodings indicate? 
A: the number of bits per code value (for UTF encodings) or the number of bytes per code value', '
Q: What are the most commonly used encodings? 
A: UTF-8 and UTF-16', '
Q: What does UCS stand for?
A: Universal Coded Character Set']
The UCS-2 and UTF-16 encodings specify the Unicode Byte Order Mark (BOM) for use at the beginnings of text files, which may be used for byte ordering detection (or byte endianness detection). The BOM, code point U+FEFF has the important property of unambiguity on byte reorder, regardless of the Unicode encoding used; U+FFFE (the result of byte-swapping U+FEFF) does not equate to a legal character, and U+FEFF in other places, other than the beginning of text, conveys the zero-width non-break space (a character with no appearance and no effect other than preventing the formation of ligatures).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does BOM stand for? 
A: Unicode Byte Order Mark', '
Q: What specifies the BOM?
A: UCS-2 and UTF-16', '
Q: what is the code point of the BOM?
A: U+FEFF', '
Q: What is U+UFFE the result of? 
A: byte-swapping U+FEFF']
The same character converted to UTF-8 becomes the byte sequence EF BB BF. The Unicode Standard allows that the BOM "can serve as signature for UTF-8 encoded text where the character set is unmarked". Some software developers have adopted it for other encodings, including UTF-8, in an attempt to distinguish UTF-8 from local 8-bit code pages. However RFC 3629, the UTF-8 standard, recommends that byte order marks be forbidden in protocols using UTF-8, but discusses the cases where this may not be possible. In addition, the large restriction on possible patterns in UTF-8 (for instance there cannot be any lone bytes with the high bit set) means that it should be possible to distinguish UTF-8 from other character encodings without relying on the BOM.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is the UTF-8 standard? 
A: RFC 3629', '
Q: Byte order marks are forbidden in protocols using what standard? 
A: UTF-8', '
Q: Why is it possible to distinguish UTF-8 from other protocols?
A: the large restriction on possible patterns']
In UTF-32 and UCS-4, one 32-bit code value serves as a fairly direct representation of any character's code point (although the endianness, which varies across different platforms, affects how the code value manifests as an octet sequence). In the other encodings, each code point may be represented by a variable number of code values. UTF-32 is widely used as an internal representation of text in programs (as opposed to stored or transmitted text), since every Unix operating system that uses the gcc compilers to generate software uses it as the standard "wide character" encoding. Some programming languages, such as Seed7, use UTF-32 as internal representation for strings and characters. Recent versions of the Python programming language (beginning with 2.2) may also be configured to use UTF-32 as the representation for Unicode strings, effectively disseminating such encoding in high-level coded software.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How is UTF-32 widely used? 
A: internal representation of text in programs', '
Q: What programming language uses UTF-32 as internal representation of characters? 
A: Seed7', '
Q: what version of python can be used with UTF-32? 
A: 2.2']
Unicode includes a mechanism for modifying character shape that greatly extends the supported glyph repertoire. This covers the use of combining diacritical marks. They are inserted after the main character. Multiple combining diacritics may be stacked over the same character. Unicode also contains precomposed versions of most letter/diacritic combinations in normal use. These make conversion to and from legacy encodings simpler, and allow applications to use Unicode as an internal text format without having to implement combining characters. For example, é can be represented in Unicode as U+0065 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E) followed by U+0301 (COMBINING ACUTE ACCENT), but it can also be represented as the precomposed character U+00E9 (LATIN SMALL LETTER E WITH ACUTE). Thus, in many cases, users have multiple ways of encoding the same character. To deal with this, Unicode provides the mechanism of canonical equivalence.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What combinations does unicode contain in normal use?
A: most letter/diacritic combinations', '
Q: How is the latin small letter e represented in Unicode?
A: U+0065', '
Q: How is the accent added to the small latin e? 
A: U+0301', '
Q: What precomposed character represents the small latin e with an accent? 
A: U+00E9']
The CJK ideographs currently have codes only for their precomposed form. Still, most of those ideographs comprise simpler elements (often called radicals in English), so in principle, Unicode could have decomposed them, as it did with Hangul. This would have greatly reduced the number of required code points, while allowing the display of virtually every conceivable ideograph (which might do away with some of the problems caused by Han unification). A similar idea is used by some input methods, such as Cangjie and Wubi. However, attempts to do this for character encoding have stumbled over the fact that ideographs do not decompose as simply or as regularly as Hangul does.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: The CJK ideographs comprise simpler elements called what in English?
A: radicals', '
Q: Why have ideographs been unable to be simplified like Hangul?
A: ideographs do not decompose as simply or as regularly', '
Q: What would be the benefit of Unicode decomposing  ideographs?
A: greatly reduced the number of required code points']
Many scripts, including Arabic and Devanagari, have special orthographic rules that require certain combinations of letterforms to be combined into special ligature forms. The rules governing ligature formation can be quite complex, requiring special script-shaping technologies such as ACE (Arabic Calligraphic Engine by DecoType in the 1980s and used to generate all the Arabic examples in the printed editions of the Unicode Standard), which became the proof of concept for OpenType (by Adobe and Microsoft), Graphite (by SIL International), or AAT (by Apple).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does ACE stand for? 
A: Arabic Calligraphic Engine', '
Q: Who created ACE?
A: DecoType', '
Q: When was ACE created? 
A: 1980s', '
Q: Who created OpenType?
A: Adobe and Microsoft', '
Q: Who created Graphite? 
A: SIL International']
Instructions are also embedded in fonts to tell the operating system how to properly output different character sequences. A simple solution to the placement of combining marks or diacritics is assigning the marks a width of zero and placing the glyph itself to the left or right of the left sidebearing (depending on the direction of the script they are intended to be used with). A mark handled this way will appear over whatever character precedes it, but will not adjust its position relative to the width or height of the base glyph; it may be visually awkward and it may overlap some glyphs. Real stacking is impossible, but can be approximated in limited cases (for example, Thai top-combining vowels and tone marks can just be at different heights to start with). Generally this approach is only effective in monospaced fonts, but may be used as a fallback rendering method when more complex methods fail.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: where are instructions embedded to tell fonts how to output sequences? 
A: in fonts', '
Q: Can real stacking be accomplished? 
A: Real stacking is impossible', '
Q: what is a solution to the placement of combining marks? 
A: assigning the marks a width of zero and placing the glyph itself to the left or right of the left sidebearing']
Several subsets of Unicode are standardized: Microsoft Windows since Windows NT 4.0 supports WGL-4 with 652 characters, which is considered to support all contemporary European languages using the Latin, Greek, or Cyrillic script. Other standardized subsets of Unicode include the Multilingual European Subsets: MES-1 (Latin scripts only, 335 characters), MES-2 (Latin, Greek and Cyrillic 1062 characters) and MES-3A & MES-3B (two larger subsets, not shown here). Note that MES-2 includes every character in MES-1 and WGL-4.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What subset of Unicode is used by Windows? 
A: WGL-4 with 652 characters', '
Q: What are MES-1, MES-2, AND MES-3A AND MES-3B part of? 
A: Multilingual European Subsets', '
Q: What subset includes every character in MES-1 and WGL-4? 
A: MES-2', '
Q: How long has Microsoft Windows supported WGL-4? 
A: since Windows NT 4.0', '
Q: MES-1 uses what scripts only? 
A: Latin scripts only']
Rendering software which cannot process a Unicode character appropriately often displays it as an open rectangle, or the Unicode "replacement character" (U+FFFD, �), to indicate the position of the unrecognized character. Some systems have made attempts to provide more information about such characters. The Apple's Last Resort font will display a substitute glyph indicating the Unicode range of the character, and the SIL International's Unicode Fallback font will display a box showing the hexadecimal scalar value of the character.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What does rendering software display when it can\'t process a Unicode character? 
A: open rectangle, or the Unicode "replacement character"', '
Q: What is the code for the Unicode replacement character? 
A: U+FFFD', "
Q: What is the name of Apple's font? 
A: Last Resort", '
Q: What company uses the Unicode Fallback font? 
A: SIL International', "
Q: What does SIL's Unicode Fallback font display when it can't display a character properly? 
A: a box showing the hexadecimal scalar value of the character"]
Unicode has become the dominant scheme for internal processing and storage of text. Although a great deal of text is still stored in legacy encodings, Unicode is used almost exclusively for building new information processing systems. Early adopters tended to use UCS-2 (the fixed-width two-byte precursor to UTF-16) and later moved to UTF-16 (the variable-width current standard), as this was the least disruptive way to add support for non-BMP characters. The best known such system is Windows NT (and its descendants, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7), which uses UTF-16 as the sole internal character encoding. The Java and .NET bytecode environments, Mac OS X, and KDE also use it for internal representation. Unicode is available on Windows 95 through Microsoft Layer for Unicode, as well as on its descendants, Windows 98 and Windows ME.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is the dominant scheme for internal processing? 
A: Unicode', '
Q: What is Unicode available through Windows on? 
A: Microsoft Layer', '
Q: What was the two-byte precursor to UTF-16? 
A: UCS-2', '
Q: What is used almost exclusively for building new information processing systems? 
A: Unicode']
MIME defines two different mechanisms for encoding non-ASCII characters in email, depending on whether the characters are in email headers (such as the "Subject:"), or in the text body of the message; in both cases, the original character set is identified as well as a transfer encoding. For email transmission of Unicode the UTF-8 character set and the Base64 or the Quoted-printable transfer encoding are recommended, depending on whether much of the message consists of ASCII-characters. The details of the two different mechanisms are specified in the MIME standards and generally are hidden from users of email software.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is recommended for email transmission of Unicode? 
A: the UTF-8 character set and the Base64 or the Quoted-printable transfer encoding', '
Q: Where are the details of the two mechanisms for email transmission specified? 
A: MIME standards', '
Q: How many different mechanisms does MIME define for encoding Unicode in email? 
A: two different mechanisms']
Thousands of fonts exist on the market, but fewer than a dozen fonts—sometimes described as "pan-Unicode" fonts—attempt to support the majority of Unicode's character repertoire. Instead, Unicode-based fonts typically focus on supporting only basic ASCII and particular scripts or sets of characters or symbols. Several reasons justify this approach: applications and documents rarely need to render characters from more than one or two writing systems; fonts tend to demand resources in computing environments; and operating systems and applications show increasing intelligence in regard to obtaining glyph information from separate font files as needed, i.e., font substitution. Furthermore, designing a consistent set of rendering instructions for tens of thousands of glyphs constitutes a monumental task; such a venture passes the point of diminishing returns for most typefaces.

Questions and answers:
["
Q: How many fonts support the majority of Unicode's character repertoire? 
A: fewer than a dozen fonts", '
Q: What are the fonts that support Unicode referred to as? 
A: "pan-Unicode" fonts', '
Q: Unicode-based fonts are normally focused on supporting what? 
A: basic ASCII and particular scripts or sets of characters or symbols']
In terms of the newline, Unicode introduced U+2028 LINE SEPARATOR and U+2029 PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR. This was an attempt to provide a Unicode solution to encoding paragraphs and lines semantically, potentially replacing all of the various platform solutions. In doing so, Unicode does provide a way around the historical platform dependent solutions. Nonetheless, few if any Unicode solutions have adopted these Unicode line and paragraph separators as the sole canonical line ending characters. However, a common approach to solving this issue is through newline normalization. This is achieved with the Cocoa text system in Mac OS X and also with W3C XML and HTML recommendations. In this approach every possible newline character is converted internally to a common newline (which one does not really matter since it is an internal operation just for rendering). In other words, the text system can correctly treat the character as a newline, regardless of the input's actual encoding.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What is the code for separating lines? 
A: U+2028', '
Q: What is the code for separating paragraphs? 
A: U+2029', '
Q: How is newline normalization accomplished in Mac OS X? 
A: Cocoa text system', '
Q: How does the newliine normallization format work? 
A: every possible newline character is converted internally to a common newline']
Unicode has been criticized for failing to separately encode older and alternative forms of kanji which, critics argue, complicates the processing of ancient Japanese and uncommon Japanese names. This is often due to the fact that Unicode encodes characters rather than glyphs (the visual representations of the basic character that often vary from one language to another). Unification of glyphs leads to the perception that the languages themselves, not just the basic character representation, are being merged.[clarification needed] There have been several attempts to create alternative encodings that preserve the stylistic differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters in opposition to Unicode's policy of Han unification. An example of one is TRON (although it is not widely adopted in Japan, there are some users who need to handle historical Japanese text and favor it).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Why has Unicode been criticized for not separately encoding forms of kanji?
A: complicates the processing of ancient Japanese and uncommon Japanese names', '
Q: What is TRON? 
A: alternative encodings that preserve the stylistic differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean characters', '
Q: What perception does the unification of glyphs cause? 
A: the languages themselves, not just the basic character representation, are being merged']
Modern font technology provides a means to address the practical issue of needing to depict a unified Han character in terms of a collection of alternative glyph representations, in the form of Unicode variation sequences. For example, the Advanced Typographic tables of OpenType permit one of a number of alternative glyph representations to be selected when performing the character to glyph mapping process. In this case, information can be provided within plain text to designate which alternate character form to select.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: what tables of OpenType allow permit the selection of alternative glyph representations?
A: Advanced Typographic', '
Q: Where is information provided to designate which character form to select? 
A: plain text', '
Q: How does modern font technology address the issue of depicting a Han character in alternate glyph representations? 
A: Unicode variation sequences']
Unicode was designed to provide code-point-by-code-point round-trip format conversion to and from any preexisting character encodings, so that text files in older character sets can be naïvely converted to Unicode, and then back and get back the same file. That has meant that inconsistent legacy architectures, such as combining diacritics and precomposed characters, both exist in Unicode, giving more than one method of representing some text. This is most pronounced in the three different encoding forms for Korean Hangul. Since version 3.0, any precomposed characters that can be represented by a combining sequence of already existing characters can no longer be added to the standard in order to preserve interoperability between software using different versions of Unicode.

Questions and answers:
['
Q: Unicode was designed for a round trip format conversion to and from what? 
A: preexisting character encodings', '
Q: How many encoding forms are there for Korean Hangul?
A: three different encoding forms', '
Q: Since what version can already existing characters no longer be added to the standard? 
A: version 3.0']
Injective mappings must be provided between characters in existing legacy character sets and characters in Unicode to facilitate conversion to Unicode and allow interoperability with legacy software. Lack of consistency in various mappings between earlier Japanese encodings such as Shift-JIS or EUC-JP and Unicode led to round-trip format conversion mismatches, particularly the mapping of the character JIS X 0208 '～' (1-33, WAVE DASH), heavily used in legacy database data, to either U+FF5E ～ FULLWIDTH TILDE (in Microsoft Windows) or U+301C 〜 WAVE DASH (other vendors).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: What kind of mappings must be provided between characters in existing legacy character sets and those in Unicode?
A: Injective mappings', '
Q: A lack of consistency between what earlier Japanese encodings and unicode led to mismatches?
A: Shift-JIS or EUC-JP', '
Q: what is the fullwidth tilde character code in Microsoft Windows?
A: U+FF5E']
Indic scripts such as Tamil and Devanagari are each allocated only 128 code points, matching the ISCII standard. The correct rendering of Unicode Indic text requires transforming the stored logical order characters into visual order and the forming of ligatures (aka conjuncts) out of components. Some local scholars argued in favor of assignments of Unicode code points to these ligatures, going against the practice for other writing systems, though Unicode contains some Arabic and other ligatures for backward compatibility purposes only. Encoding of any new ligatures in Unicode will not happen, in part because the set of ligatures is font-dependent, and Unicode is an encoding independent of font variations. The same kind of issue arose for Tibetan script[citation needed] (the Chinese National Standard organization failed to achieve a similar change).

Questions and answers:
['
Q: How many code points are tamil and Devanagari allocated? 
A: 128', '
Q: What is another word for ligatures? 
A: conjuncts', '
Q: What is the ISCII standard? 
A: 128 code points']