2003-04-01 13:08:22, John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:

>Nicholas Bodley scripsit:
>
>> Caveat: I have only scanned the document, but what I did see
>> looks very sensible.
>
>I have read it, and it is riddled with elementary errors and
>misunderstandings about Unicode. Furthermore, it has many of the same
>deficiencies it accuses Unicode of having, but in spades; for example,
>each of the hundreds of languages that use the Latin script gets its
>very own encoding, so A-Z and a-z are encoded hundreds of times. It has
>nothing to say about bidi, multilingual sorting, or many other issues.

Although I know better, I nevertheless think I fell into the trap of
attributing value to an arbitrary document. As a friend points out,the
Internet's greatest weakness (and its greatest strength, some say) is that
there is no editor for it. However, Google's rankings are quite often
useful, but I would not call Google an editor.

As well, I might have been somewhat impressed with what superficially
looked like careful writing of the document.

>> I still love Unicode, but I also intend to study this document with
>> considerable care.
>
>IMNSHO it is a waste of time.

Although it surely was not my intent to depend upon others, nevertheless
your implicit advice is welcome!

> Also note that it is dated 1997, and meanwhile Unicode has taken over

the computing universe.

I did note that, and wondered about it.

At least, nobody got hurt.

> Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
> Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.

Intriguing. Bad guess, maybe: Proven�al? I don't think Breton.

Best regards, and thanks!

Nicholas Bodley |@| Waltham, Mass.
Opera browser fan/user
Crocuses are up!
I detest arrogance.