Before people get their panties in a bunch, I'm not dissing Unicode. The point
that I am trying to make is that Unicode will probably never make everyone
happy. It WILL likely become widely accepted, and should offer the best
solution yet to integrating the major character sets into one.
> If the author of the original paper referred to here thinks there are
> still significant characters missing from Unicode, he should stop whining
> about it and put together a researched proposal. That's what the
> Byzantine music researchers did, and as a result their characters have now
> been added. This is how standardization works. You have to actually go
> do the work; you can't just complain and expect someone else to do it for
> you.
That wasn't the point. The only character set I ever expect to encounter (or
for that matter, support) is already in (Latin1). The point I was making is
that no matter what goes in, until everything is in there, in all type-cases,
someone won't be happy.
> It seems to me that you haven't bothered to go look at what Unicode is
> actually doing.
Actually, I have. Unicode is mapping characters to numeric values, but not ALL
of them. This is a quote from unicode.org's site: "Unicode provides a unique
number for every character, no matter what the platform, no matter what the
program, no matter what the language." Now we all know that isn't actually true
(at least not yet). If that was the goal, then they failed. If however, they
simply are trying to improve on the ascii character set, then they have done a
fine job. If at some point, they meet that goal, then I'll be truly impressed,
because I'm not sure that it's possible regardless of the mechanism.
Grant M.
