> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reynolds, Gregg [mailto:greynolds@datalogics.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 1999 3:36 PM
> To: Unicode List
> Cc: unicode@unicode.org
> Subject: RE: Arabic - Alef Maqsurah
>
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> > > this discussion. My personal project is to model the
> > working of Arabic
> > > texts, so my loyalties are to the language, not to legacy software.
> >
> > Here, "legacy" software includes, of course, Office 2000,
> > which is only
> > just now becoming available, with Unicode-based Arabic as part of the
> > package. That's pretty new to already be scorned as "legacy software."
>
> It's not that I scorn legacy software; that would be like scorning gravity
> (or God, where a certain software maker is concerned). I just think the
> natual language, and not legacy software ("encoding designs" would be a
> better term here) should be the yardstick.
I think we should consider legacy data rather than software. Software can be
fixed, while changing all the data is practically impossible.
Jony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:48 EDT