At 06:22 PM 6/5/2001 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 10:17:08AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Is it just me, or does this entire article reduce not to "Unicode doesn't
> > work" but "Unicode should assign more characters"?
>
>Yes. And Unicode has assigned more characters; it's factually challenged.
The other issue it actively brought up was the complaint about having to
share glyphs amongst several languages, which didn't strike me as all that
big a deal either, except perhaps as a matter of national pride and/or easy
identification of the language of origin for a glyph. Not being literate in
any of the languages in question, though, I didn't feel particularly
qualified to make a judgement as to the validity of the complaints.
It does bring up a deeper issue, however. Unicode is, at the moment,
apparently inadequate to represent at least some part of the asian
languages. Are the encodings currently in use less inadequate? I've been
assuming that an Anything->Unicode translation will be lossless, but this
makes me wonder whether that assumption is correct.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
