Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Courtesy of Slashdot,
> http://www.hastingsresearch.com/net/04-unicode-limitations.shtml
Is it just me, or does this entire article reduce not to "Unicode doesn't
work" but "Unicode should assign more characters"?
The presentation initially made me think that the author was going to
identify some major flaw in the entire concept of Unicode. By the end,
all I managed to get out of the paper was a bunch of information about the
number of characters used in CJKV languages and a whine about how Unicode
hasn't included them all yet. I fail to see any identified problem that
isn't neatly resolved by just including the rest of the characters. Those
people who care about them can then find fonts that contain them and the
rest of us can get on with our lives and ignore them like we ignore all
the other character sets for languages we don't need to use.
Am I missing something?
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
