From: Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Wed Dec 24 2003 - 11:19:28 EST
Michael Everson wrote:
> Philippe wrote:
> >ISO10646 could have followed a distinct path where each language
> >could have been encoded separately, but the choice to encode only
> >scripts has greatly reduced the needs for more planes, which was
> >reasonnable to project when you saw the explosion of encodings that
> >were soon to exceed the capabilities of ISO2022 and similar 8-bit
> >code repertoires).
>
> This is, I am sorry to say, a completely unwarranted assumption. No
> one EVER suggested "encoding each language separately" in ISO/IEC
> 10646 [sic].
I'm curious to know how you interpret the very first words "could have"
in my sentence. Which were hypothetic enough to say that this is not
the path that has been followed, even if the initial very large
ISO10646 coding space would have allowed this, and possibly simplified
things.
Once again it's impossible to be concise if I need each time
to explain every word. I don't like having to justify words that
are reasonnably clear by themselves for a discussion.
__________________________________________________________________
<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed Spam messages and set aside
Newsletters for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE! http://www.ellaforspam.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 24 2003 - 11:57:23 EST