Kenneth Whistler scripsit: > The question is rather, given the fundamental nature of the > Unicode Standard as enabling text processing for modern > software, it is cost-effective and *reasonable* to provide > a Unicode encoding for one particular script or another, > unencoded to date, so as to maximize the chances that it > will be handled more easily by modern software in the global > infrastructure and to minimize the costs associated with > doing so.
These words (and indeed your entire posting) deserve to be written up in letters of gold somewhere. -- LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan thou hast given away: [EMAIL PROTECTED] That thou wast born with. http://www.reutershealth.com
