Sorry, I could not resist:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Philipp Reichmuth wrote:
[..]
>
> Oh, the difference is probably that from this category of pages, you
> can cut&paste into Word without garbling up your data because it uses
> a *standard* encoding as opposed to the complete chaos of Hindi web
> pages using their own fonts. Does that count as justification for
> Unicode?
[..]
Please do not refer to MS Word. If Unicode Consortium had not
listened to the industrial push of Micsrosoft to support
their existing and broken standard, we would have a much
better and cleaner character standard now.
I don't think a character standard should go in the arena of
typesetting to the extent Unicode does. I think it should
provide clean and easy character standard with presentation
forms that can be unambiguously put on a character based
text terminal with no fancy typesetting features. Then if
you want to typeset, go to the next level.
As for cut & paste, it might work among Microsoft Apps
but if one wants to interface an app with a disclosed
clipboard format he will realize that he can not paste
unicode text that contains '\u0000' characters. Impossible.
And how about UCS-4 ? Forget it. As a text format it is not
even existent.
I think it would be much better to look for another
benchmark engine. If I were Unicode Consortium I would
build one. Just to prove that the standard works.
Wait... maybe it does not?
Thanks for your attention, I am really bad I know :)
cheers
gaspar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Nov 26 2001 - 01:39:08 EST