John Cowan wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels scripsit:
> > > I was suddenly enlightened. Peter Daniels doesn't know how things
> > > are encoded in Unicode and what terms are being used.
> >
> > and he doesn't care ... he doesn't need to know how the computer-jocks
> > get the scripts to come out right on the screen.
> If Unicode were designed only for rendering purposes, it would be a great
> deal simpler than it is. Indeed, it would not be necessary at all. The
> whole point of having a single universal encoding of letters and their
> friends is to permit processing other than rendering to take place in a
> systematic and unified way, as much as the rather miscellaneous nature of
> the subject permits.

Which doesn't concern the user.

> > > Korean - encoded by phoneme and syllable
> >
> > (what does that _mean_??)
> It means that there are two encodings of Korean writing within Unicode
> (regrettably): one which encodes Korean hangul individually, and one which
> encodes Korean syllables (only the modern ones, but including ones which
> are not actually required by the Korean language).

Well, that was silly! But it doesn't concern the user.
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...