On 11/03/18 21:05, Arthur Reutenauer wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 07:35:11PM +0100, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote: > > I fail to understand why increasing complexity decreases the need to be > > widely understood. > > I’m pretty sure that everybody will agree that the need gets all the > greater as Unicode and connected technologies get more complex. But you > can hopefully see that the cost also increases, and that’s incentive > enough to refrain from doing it – as it already was very costly fifteen > years ago, it’s likely to be prohibitive today. > > > Recurrent threads show how slowly Unicode education > > is spreading among English native speakers; others incidentally complained > > about Unicode‐educational issues in African countries. *Not* translating > > the Standard — in whatever way — wonʼt help steepen the curve. > > Nobody is saying “let’s not translate the Unicode Standard”; what > several people here have pointed out is that it pays to have more modest > and manageable goals. Besides, you’re hinting yourself that the > problems are not only with translation, since they also affect native > English speakers.
Indeed, to be fair. And for implementers, documenting themselves in English may scarcely ever have much of a problem, no matter whatʼs the locale. Todayʼs policy is, that we are welcome to browse Wikipedia: http://www.unicode.org/standard/WhatIsUnicode.html Fundamentally thatʼs true (although the wording could use some fixes as of the difference between *using* Unicode and *documenting* Unicode), and itʼs consistent with actual trends. As of the cost — It still seems to me that weʼre far from the last word… Best regards, Marcel
