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

From: Keld J|rn Simonsen (
Date: Sun Sep 01 1996 - 20:08:43 EDT

unicode@Unicode.ORG writes:

> Dan wrote:
> >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).
> Please don't confuse internal representation and user interface
> behaviour. It is no problem to have A-ring (and any whatever
> complicated other characters that may be interpreted as
> combined) as single characters to the user, while still
> using two codes internally.

Yes, but why complicate things?


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