Re: Fwd: Wired 4.09 p. 130: Lost in Translation

From: Jonathan Rosenne (100320.1303@CompuServe.COM)
Date: Thu Aug 29 1996 - 03:02:25 EDT

Michael Everson wrote:
>Martin J Duerst wrote:
>>Please be careful. To know whether an A is just only an A, you only have
>>to check the next position. If that next position is not a combining
>>character, you know it is an A, if it is a combining character, you
>>know it is "something else".
>Yes, but it's not a once-off look, is it? Because you can stack combining
>characters. So you know it's not an A, but you have to keep looking and
>looking and looking, don't you? Doesn't this make processing much more
>complex than Level 1 processing?

Level 3 is more complex than level 1, and level 1 is more complex than
ASCII. Wouln't it be nice if everyone would just use plain English?

Level 1 solves the problem for a limited set of mainly Europen languages, but
the cost is very high: constant revision of the character set standard.

A truly "universal" character set can only be built on composition.

As far as I can remember, Unicode accepted pre-composed characters as part of
the great compromise with ISO 10646. It doesn't mean we have to think of them as
anything more than a pragmatic sanction.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT