On 3 Jul 2013, at 19:21, Asmus Freytag <asm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2013 2:04 AM, Michael Everson wrote: >> On 3 Jul 2013, at 09:52, Martin J. Dürst <due...@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote: >> >>> Quite a few people might expect their Japanese filenames to appear with a >>> Japanese font/with Japanese glyph variants, and their Chinese filenames to >>> appear with a Chinese font/Chinese glyph variants. But that's never how >>> this was planned, and that's not how it works today. >> >> Yeah, but CJK is a world of difference away from alphabets of 30-40 >> characters. > > That sounds dangerously close to special pleading.
It isn't. It's a practical response to an encoding problem from a person who has some small experience in these matters. Have you read the background documents? In general, however, I'm not impressed by arguments about how CJK has solved some difficult problem because there are gargantuan industrial concerns working to make sure both Chinese and Japanese users are happy. Not so for much smaller language communities. >> I oppose language-tagging as a mechanism to fix the cock-up of slavishly >> following 8859 decomposition for cedilla and comma-below. Character encoding >> is the better way to deal with this. > > That's the more fundamental point. If comma below and cedilla are really > fundamentally different marks, then treating them as such is a principled > solution. > > However, the compromise sounds dangerously like it introduces another one of > those irregularities that people will trip over in the future. Go on. Work it out. What's your better solution? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
