On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:43:02PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Heavens, no :-) Strictly speaking not even ISO 8859-1 would be enough
> for Finnish, I think 8859-15 is the first set that covers all the required
> characters. (But 8859-1 is enough for everyday use.)
>
> > all your files would
> > probably be named in ASCII and all your daily work in handling those
> > files would be in ASCII.
>
> I find that rather mindnumbingly self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yes, that doesn't negate it's truth.
Also, you're part of the problem. "8859-1 is enough for everyday use."
So long as the Finnish use 8859-1/-15, the Russians use KOI8-R, and the
Japenese use EUC-JP, the only common subset acceptable for use under
Unix will be ASCII. You can't introduce a new regex syntax that requires
U+2045 and U+2046 unless almost everyone uses Unicode.
> > Computing people have fit themselves to the
> > ASCII space - in Unix/ksh/Bash/C/Perl(?) the special symbols pretty
> > much fill the non-alphanumeric space of ASCII. It's adequate for what
> > I do as a programmer and hacker.
>
> Adequate, yes, but so was clay and reeds for thousands of years and
> for kings greater than any of us.
No one's arguing over if Unicode should be used. This discussion is
about what's adequate.
> > It's not adequate for what I do as
> > transcriber of books and a mathematics major.
>
> In truly demanding typesetting, like mathematics, we get into areas not
> covered by Unicode, like fonts, kerning, the whole two-dimensional
> (as opposed to one-dimensional) layout business.
I'm currently in a class where the teacher heavily uses Maple. It would
be an amazing boon to me if the Maple programs used combining vectors
above and real Greek letters, so that they corresponded to what's going
on the board.
--
David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
