From: Christopher John Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 07:26:40 EDT
"Carl W. Brown" <cbrown@xnetinc.com> wrote:
> To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <michka@trigeminal.com>;
<unicode@unicode.org>
> MichKa,
> > This is an equal opportunity forum intended for discussion
of issues
> > relative to Unicode, an industrial consortium that includes
(among many
> > others) the companies you are talking about. Excessive
anti-ANYONE talk is
> > really not productive.
> I disagree with Philippe's message in that I think that it is
based on
> Microsoft's determination to follow the idea that browsers are
not
> applications but part of the OS. This means that IE can
become more Windows
> specific. The Unicode aspects are that if browsers are
extensions of the OS
> that how will browsers perform that are build on non-Unicode
based OSes?
But surely Mac OSX has been designed to support Unicode ??
How much longer will we need browsers to run in operating
environments that are non-Unicode based?
> Let us hope that this drop of support will result in a browser
that is
> specifically designed to provide good Unicode support on a
non-Unicode OS
> rather than adding Unicode support to a piece of code that was
designed for
> an OS with integrated Unicode support.
> Browsers have become a critical par of even transitional
application where
> developers have chosen to use browsers even for locale
application because
> it can solved many i18n and Unicode support issues if the
browsers have good
> support.
Since MS Office 20003 seems to be heavily based on XML,
it looks to me like end user applications are in effect becoming
specialised XML browsers / editors.
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 08:33:42 EDT