Re: Mixed up priorities

From: G. Adam Stanislav (
Date: Fri Oct 22 1999 - 00:26:07 EDT

At 02:25 22-10-1999 +0100, Robert Brady wrote:
> * Is there a "ch" key on Slovak keyboards?

There are no Slovak keyboards. There is a Slovak keyboard mapping for
Windows, designed in the state of Washington.

> * If I enter "ch", and then press backspace would you want "c" or "" to
> appear? What should happen if I enter "ch" and then press the left
> arrow? Will it take the cursor to before the "h" or before the "c"?

Preferably, "" should appear. It should take the cursor before the "c".

> * If so, can you see how this can be implemented even without allocating
> a codepoint?

Irrelevant. Unicode is about character encoding, not about what can or
cannot be done.

> * If not, and it's just a sorting issue, why are you continuing to whine
> about it, when proper English sorting is just as complicated?

I am not whining about anything. I have a Vulcan attitude about this. It is
logical that if Unicode is a standard for character encoding, then it
should encode the CH. Everything else is irrelevant in this discussion.
Feel free to picture Mr. Spock when you read my messages. I am about as
emotional about this as he is.

> * Why do you feel ISO8859-2 is adequate given it's lack of a "ch"
> character?

Because it is not a character encoding standard. It encodes glyphs, albeit
not glyph variants.

> * Define what you mean by "character", and why you think "ch" is one,

The Unicode standard defines "character". No need for me to repeat it. I
have explained what seems like a hundred times why CH is a character in
Slovak, not why I "think" it is.

> but, for example, "sl" isn't?

I never said it was not. I do not know all languages, maybe in some
language it is.

> Note : asserting "But it's a character"
> or "It behaves like a character" without any justification is unlikely
> to be useful.

It is a character in the Slovak language. There is no justification for it.
It just is. In linguistics asking why something is the way it is makes no
sense. Languages evolved the way they evolved. We can study them, we cannot
justify them. Nor should we. The only reason that the CH glyph combination
is used for a character is that someone, long time ago, decided to use that
glyph combination for that particular character, and no one has changed it


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT