> 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.
> Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta
> 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire (Ireland)
> Gutháin: +353 1 478-2597, +353 1 283-9396
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
I would like to be corrected if you can provide me more latest
information I don't know of. May I ask, as far as you know, which
version of Unicode, 2-byte or UTF-16 or whatever, is been used or under
implementation by any computer company?
As far as my statement on Microsoft looking for other coding scheme, if
you can read Chinese computer news, you will know I am LIVE RIGHT. The
captain is abandoning the ship. Why? Because the coding structure and
the implementation of Unicode are DEADLY WRONG. For example, can anyone
tell me what is the definition of a Character? And what is a glyph? In
version 1.0 of Unicode book, code 337B ~ 337F, can these be called as
characters? If so, I can give you many more examples in Chinese. And
then, why the Japanese emperor's names can be coded, but not the
Chinese? In Chinese history, there were more than 500 emperors, some had
more than one name. Why the Wester Chess symbols were coded as
characters?, but not the Chinese Mar-jhon? Cultural superiority? I think
the root of the problem is that the Unicoder DOES NOT understand what is
a character. And this is the deadly vital problem. And in my opinion,
until the Unicoders start to respect different culture and language,
they won't be able to do the coding right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT