From: "Andrew Cunningham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> true, personally i'd rather seem Microsft complete their unicode support
> first before doing anything with other character sets ... quite a few
years
> off full support for unicode 3.0 and 3.1
Well, I guess this is one of those huge "maybe" type questions, since there
is no universal definition of what "supports Unicode x.xx" means. Here are
some sample posers:
1) Does it mean there is a font and an input method for every single script
bundled with the OS?
2) Does it mean that you can plug in your own fonts and the OS will support
them?
3) Does it mean that the latest version of UTF-8 and its corrigenda are
supported?
4) Does it mean that there are no deviations between the Unicode bidi
algorithm and the one MS implements?
5) Does it mean the OS does all the work for all scripts and the developer
does not need to do anything special for them to work?
In some places, Windows 2000 is 3.1 compliant; in others claiming it is even
2.1 compliant is probably pushing it. The statement "supports Unicode 3.0
and 3.1" is semantically null unless one adds some context for the
statement. :-)
> and if only they did allow latin script support in uniscribe .... but i
> guess support for african langaguageds is extremely low on their list of
> priorities.
I would not ever presume such a thing... what issues in latin scripts are
you referring to? I am not sure Uniscribe is where such a fix would be (all
the issues I know of would involve keyboards and potentially fonts).
michka
