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

Date: Fri Aug 30 1996 - 02:42:43 EDT

> About your claim vis-a-vis "i"; it is wrong. This was clarified in the
> standard in 1992 (see TSR#4). If you don't have a copy of TSR#4, then
> you can wait a few weeks and look at the Unicode 2.0 book. That also
> contains a lot more information on implementation guidelines, which
> should help to show how to deal with some of the other issues that arise
> with combining characters.

I have not read through Unicode that much, but for me from Sweden where
the code: 0xe5 (that is what for you looks like a lower case a with a
ring above) is NOT an accented letter, it is a true letter and cannot
be decomposed. So if my letter may be represented as two parts, the
letter "i" ought also to be able to be represented as two parts, it
looks as much as 0xe5 as something with an accent above. But I guess
this is the common case where English speaking people always define
the standards so that ascii (english letters) is always represented
in a naturell and easy way, and all other in the oposite. Now in Unicode
you at least had the chance to allow other letters to be represented
in a naturell way (in this case by a singel unique code), bud did not
use it. (Yes, I know that 0xe5 in some languages may be an accented letter,
but not in Swedish and it is wrong to give the appearence that it is).


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