From: Patrick Andries (patrick.andries@xcential.com)
Date: Thu May 19 2005 - 10:45:42 CDT
Mark Davis a écrit :
>Dhu odz uv dhat hapining in dhu foerseeubul fyoocur foer dhee inkoedeen uv
>tekst or, at best, miniskyool. Noebudee iz goeeen too caenj too u brand-noo
>inkoedeen bikuz "BRACKET" iz mispeld oer biblikul heebroo iz sumwut moer
>okwurd dhan it kuud bee; it iz for too kostlee.
>
Indeed.
But are even inexistent or duplicate characters -- and, in my opinion,
we are still gaily encoding some -- a good enough reason to change to a
brand-new encoding ? What will make people change of encoding ? I'm not
sure but I suppose it may be the sheer accumulation of errors, some very
small but annoying or discrediting, other more serious in that they will
make processes more complex as technologies evolve and Unicode remains «
stable ». Somehow, intuitively, I wonder whether this needed stability
may not one day veer to cumbersomeness and bring forth a reformed encoding.
As far as the « analysis of the world's writing systems we are doing
today », I find the term grandiloquent as often this analysis is simply
a reproduction of work already done elsewhere (we are encouraged to find
consensual support of experts of the scripts and some of this is simply
reproducing an abc such as Phoenician) and some of the original analysis
has been very much criticized by the users (Khmer for instance). This is
not to say that the original engineering solution of this compilation of
prior works is not of great importance and of definitive usefulness to
users around the world. A very useful engineering solution with its
imperfections.
P. A.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 19 2005 - 10:47:36 CDT