On 4/20/2013 1:12 PM, jmfauth wrote:
In a previous post,
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/browse_thread/thread/6aec70817705c226#
,
Chris “Kwpolska” Warrick wrote:
“Is Unicode support so hard, especially in the 21st century?”
--
Unicode is not really complicate and it works very well (more
than two decades of development if you take into account
iso-14****).
But, - I can say, "as usual" - people prefer to spend their
time to make a "better Unicode than Unicode" and it usually
fails. Python does not escape to this rule.
-----
I'm "busy" with TeX (unicode engine variant), fonts and typography.
This gives me plenty of ideas to test the "flexible string
representation" (FSR). I should recognize this FSR is failing
particulary very well...
I can almost say, a delight.
jmf
Unicode lover
I'm totally confused about what you are saying. What does "make a
better Unicode than Unicode" mean? Are you saying that Python is guilty
of this? In what way? Can you provide specifics? Or are you saying
that you like how Python has implemented it? "FSR is failing ... a
delight"? I don't know what you mean.
--Ned.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
