mary ink wrote:
> Brendan and Markus,
> I don't think anyone has to defend or rush to anyone's defense here. Unicode
> is going to be a part of everyone's daily life, no? So I guess everyone
> feels entitled to take a crack at understanding it, or at least a crack at
> it full stop. My own naive questions were answered very patiently by Edward
> Cherlin and Donald Lord. I was grateful because beyond this public forum
> it's a bit tough to get current information on very detailed aspects of
> Unicode. Besides, can you really blame anyone for being alarmed about how an
> international standardization body will deal with their unique, complex,
> nuanced and expressive scripted language? Some people will react all out of
> reason over a dropped circonflex. Some won't. The more correct information
> people have in advance the less they'll go off all xenophobic and paranoid
> about Unicode.
Now I feel compelled to respond -
Most of your questions were answered in the Unicode 2.0 book and the small
history that came with it. I read it, cover to cover, which is how I learned
about Unicode and how Korean was handled and why it was handled that way as well
as how the Han unification was accomplished. The book is not terribly
expensive, especially considering the cost of creating software which uses
Unicode. Probably what might best serve folks in various parts of the world is
a translation of the book. Unfortunately, some entity needs to step forward to
foot the bill, or to do the work.
Many of the questions sent to the Unicode list are clearly answered in the
book. It makes me wonder if some folks are bothering to read it. If not, how
are we to communicate what Unicode is?
-- Andrea Vine, firstname.lastname@example.org, iPlanet i18n architect "The complementarity of priority information actions will reinforce individual projects and, in particular, those relating to the Euro." --From the "Information Programme for the European Citizen"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:02 EDT