home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!mcsun!sunic!seunet!enea!sommar
- From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.internat
- Subject: Re: The ultimate encoding
- Message-ID: <1993Jan10.103419.2364@enea.se>
- Date: 10 Jan 93 10:34:19 GMT
- References: <1iddeeINN58g@rodan.UU.NET> <1993Jan9.220818.25882@enea.se> <2677@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
- Organization: Enea Data AB
- Lines: 31
-
- Masataka Ohta (mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp) writes:
- >Erland Sommarskog (sommar@enea.se) writes:
- >>Seriously, I disagrees with the statement above, and I think most
- >>other people do. Putting the language into the coding gives more
- >>problems than it solves. How deal with umpteen instances of the
- >>same character because it is treated different language?
-
- This last sentence should of course end: "...because it is treated
- differently in different languages."
-
- >If an application must neglect language difference, it can do so in the
- >application.
-
- It must equalize all the umpteen instances, yes. And it better do if
- the user is not going to be violent when he is told "you got the wrong
- sort of 'W' here, please replace". But of course the application still
- has to follow the language rules preferred by the user. But then what's
- the point with all these umpteen instances? None.
-
- >>Unicode is a tool for complete solutions for the world in the 21st century.
- >
- >Disagreed. Perhaps, you are trying to force all the people in the world
- >(or, at least Japanese) to use Latin alphabet only in the 21st century.
-
- It occurred to me later that I should have said 10646 and not Unicode
- here. I don't want to say neither this nor that about the CJK stuff, as
- I know nothing about these languages and scripts, but as I understand
- it with 10646 you can later add separate instances for non-unified
- characters.
- --
- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
-