Michael Everson wrote: An Irish colleague here said he liked the article but noted that the Times' web directors don't use Unicode....There is an alternative point of view, which says that charset declared in an HTML (or XML) document is no more than an encoding scheme, and that all characters in those documents are fundamentally Unicode characters (i.e. they start in life with the full semantic of Unicode, they don't inherit it on the occasion of character set conversion). That view is supported by the XML spec itself, and by the infoset definition. And because we have numeric character entities, using an iso-8859-1 encoding scheme is not really a limitation: witness this message, which contains U+10DB მ GEORGIAN LETTER MAN and U+092E म DEVANAGARI LETTER MA. Eric. |
- Re: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- RE: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- RE: About that alphabetician... Asmus Freytag
- Re: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- RE: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- Re: About that alphabetician... Eric Muller
- Re: About that alphabetician... Brian Doyle
- Re: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- Re: About that alphabetician... John Burger
- Re: About that alphabetician... Brian Doyle
- Re: About that alphabetician... Curtis Clark
- RE: About that alphabetician... John Hudson
- RE: About that alphabetician... Michael Everson
- RE: About that alphabetician... John Hudson
- Re: About that alphabetician... Peter Kirk
- Re: About that alphabetician... Rick McGowan