Socrates: "What did I do with that hemlock?"
From: <greynolds@datalogics.com> AT Internet on 10/21/99 08:22
PM CDT
Received on: 10/21/99
To: Peter Constable/IntlAdmin/WCT, unicode@unicode.org AT
Internet@Ccmail
cc:
Subject: Re: Mixed up priorities
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Hudson [mailto:tiro@tiro.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 7:19 PM
>
> At 04:49 PM 21-10-99 -0700, G. Adam Stanislav wrote:
>
> with them, but is it true that these sorting and hyphenation
rules
> _require_ encoding of these digraphs as precomposed
characters?
>
> specific sorting and hyphenation rules. Are you suggesting
> that each of
> these sequences _needs_ to be encoded as a precomposed
character?
>
> Again, is it _necessary_ for this behaviour to be controlled
> by encoding
> these letters as individual, precomposed characters? If there
>
Why is the burden of proof on the users of the language? I
would turn the question around: is it really _necessary_ to
leave slovak/czech "ch" out of Unicode?
> Remember that Unicode is a standard for encoding _plain
> text_. Unicode does
> not contain sorting rules for individual languages, nor does
> it contain
> hyphenation rules for individual languages. Unicode provides
I don't see what plaintext, sorting and hyphenation have to do
with it. Slovak and Czech literates have this thing within
their culture, and they use "ch" denote it. So if plaintext
doesn't accomodate "ch", then it must not be plain text for
Slovaks and Czechs. Why do we need more information than that?
Utterly perplexed,
Gregg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT