Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from June 2001
NeonEdge <webmaster@neonedge.com> writes: > This is evident in the "Musical Symbols" and even "Byzantine Musical > Symbols". Are these character sets more important than the actual > language character sets being denied to the other countries? Are musical > and mathematical symbols even a language at all? At the same time as 246 Byzantine Musical Symbols and 219 Musical Symbols were added, 43,253 Asian language ideographs were added. I fail to see the problem. Musical and mathematical symbols are certainly used more frequently than ancient Han ideographs that have been obsolete for 2,000 years, and it's not like the ideographs are having major difficulties being added to Unicode either. 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. In the meantime, the normally-encountered working character set of modern Asian languages has been in Unicode from the beginning, and currently the older and rarer characters and the characters used these days only in proper names are being backfilled at a rate of tens of thousands per Unicode revision. How this can then be described as ignoring Asian languages boggles me beyond words. There are a lot of characters. It takes time. Rome wasn't built in a day. > It seems to me that Unicode, in it's present form, although a valiant > attempt, is just a 'better' ascii, and not a complete solution. It seems to me that you haven't bothered to go look at what Unicode is actually doing. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>Thread Previous | Thread Next