Michael Everson wrote:
>At 06:06 1996-08-09, Timothy Huang wrote:
>>>By the way, recently, it just comes to my attention -- Microsoft is
>>>looking to a other solution for the character coding issue. Don't waste =
>>>your time to write anything for Unicode now and then find out MS
>>>already abandoned the ship. I think finally MS reallized that Unicode =3D
>>>is a dead end without any practical usability. But to save their face, =3D
>>>they may still preaching the gospel of Unicode.
>>>Professor Timothy Huang (of Chinese Computing)
>>>54 KuangFu South Road
>>>Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
>I have often said that Unicode is "only one implementation of ISO 10646",
>and I have had some criticisms of Unicode philosophy regarding
>decomposition of characters....
>I think that Timothy Huang is DEAD WRONG here, and that he is obviously
>unaware of UTF-16, and that Unicode is not (to be) limited to just a single
>plane of 10646. Early implementations are and will be so limited, of
>course, but the problems that Huang has pointed out have been recognized
>long since. What he says about Microsoft is likewise misinformed.
It's a truly bizarre rant that ignores the work of the IRG (nee CJK-JRG)
and the support for Unicode in official standards bodies, neglecting to
point us at anything better.
But the bit about Microsoft is truly clever. Microsoft may still be
pretending they're supporting Unicode, quoth'a, but they're really not so
ignore everything they say on the subject because I know better.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT