Unicode.ORG!unicode@kcig2.att.att.com wrote:
>
> I used to spend an inordinate amount of time rebutting such criticisms.
> Eventually, I decided that the criticisms basically did not matter, primarly
> because the software industry has essentially adopted Unicode at this
> point and is moving forward with it. Just to list a few significant mediums,
> languages, OSs and technologies based on Unicode: HTML, XML (new lightweight SGML),
> JAVA, DYLAN, Windows NT, OLE2, NextStep 4.0, etc. This list is growing on
> a daily basis. Why slow down to answer pointless questions about why something
> was done this way vs. that way? The cornerstone is set; let's try to cross the bridge
> at least once before we burn it down.
>
> So, I've basically decided to spend my time actually incorporating Unicode
> into products rather than talking about doing so or arguing with people who've
[snip]
We, at least, are not trying to slow or burn anything down.
I speak for myself and at least 20 other professionals
who share an interest in Devanagari. Is there a point-man
in Unicode who will be inclined to discuss Unicode's
encoding of Devanagari? Maybe we could contact him/her
directly, and take this off-line.
I can understand your attitude if I was against Unicode.
I am not. I simply have problems with the way Devanagri
has been encoded. And it is a solvable problem...
-- Sandeep Sibal Phone: (908) 949-6277 Email: sibal@att.com WWW: http://weed.arch.com.inter.net/~sibal/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:33 EDT