-----Original Message-----
From: Edward Cherlin <edward.cherlin.sy.67@aya.yale.edu>
To: Unicode List <unicode@unicode.org>
Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 00:19
>A more useful measure yet might be the number of major literature
>publishing projects using Unicode. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae covers
>essentially all of Classical Greek, but not in Unicode. Project
>Gutenberg can be counted as UTF-8, since it is plain 7-bit ASCII. I
>know of projects in European languages, Arabic, Hebrew, Pali
>(Devanagari, Sinhala, Thai and Latin scripts), Sanskrit, Tibetan,
>Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. None used Unicode the last time I
>looked, although I am sure that many of them are looking at Unicode
>conversion for the future.
I also include fragments in many scripts in the e-texts I work on, not using
Unicode, but ad-hoc ASCII transcription for entering them, and SGML entities
for storage. The reason is simple, to few tools still support Unicode, while
all computers support the plain and simple set of ASCII. Still, Unicode is
invaluable to me, as it provides a point of reference for me. I define all
encodings I use in terms of Unicode --- and wait for the happy day it
will be as commonplace as ASCII today.
Jeroen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT