Not everything that is technically possible makes good sense. My comments clearly were not framed solely in terms of what is technically possible.
Peter -----Original Message----- From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:e...@gnu.org] Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 1:36 PM To: Peter Constable Cc: nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org; unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: Ways to show Unicode contents on Windows? > From: Peter Constable <peter...@microsoft.com> > CC: "nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org" <nospam-ab...@ilyaz.org>, > "unicode@unicode.org" > <unicode@unicode.org> > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 19:49:10 +0000 > > I'm sorry that Microsoft's approach to product servicing does not meet your > expectations. It is what it is, however. That's not the issue here. The issue here is that such updates _could_ be provided without requiring users to install a newer version of the OS. IOW, the assertion that one cannot expect an OS shipped in 2001 to support scripts that didn't exist at that time is simply false. There's no technical problem here, only a managerial decision. > Also, while you would evidently appreciate seeing an optional update for > Uniscribe show up in Windows Update, the vast majority of users would only be > confused by that. How can a newer and better text shaping engine possibly confuse users?
