NeonEdge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is evident in the "Musical Symbols" and even "Byzantine Musical
> Symbols". Are these character sets more important than the actual
> language character sets being denied to the other countries? Are musical
> and mathematical symbols even a language at all?
At the same time as 246 Byzantine Musical Symbols and 219 Musical Symbols
were added, 43,253 Asian language ideographs were added. I fail to see
the problem.
Musical and mathematical symbols are certainly used more frequently than
ancient Han ideographs that have been obsolete for 2,000 years, and it's
not like the ideographs are having major difficulties being added to
Unicode either.
If the author of the original paper referred to here thinks there are
still significant characters missing from Unicode, he should stop whining
about it and put together a researched proposal. That's what the
Byzantine music researchers did, and as a result their characters have now
been added. This is how standardization works. You have to actually go
do the work; you can't just complain and expect someone else to do it for
you.
In the meantime, the normally-encountered working character set of modern
Asian languages has been in Unicode from the beginning, and currently the
older and rarer characters and the characters used these days only in
proper names are being backfilled at a rate of tens of thousands per
Unicode revision. How this can then be described as ignoring Asian
languages boggles me beyond words. There are a lot of characters. It
takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day.
> It seems to me that Unicode, in it's present form, although a valiant
> attempt, is just a 'better' ascii, and not a complete solution.
It seems to me that you haven't bothered to go look at what Unicode is
actually doing.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
