Re: "ch" as in yecch

Date: Mon Oct 25 1999 - 00:30:49 EDT

       Tex wrote:
>This list can go on and on (and on...) about abstract
       characters, versus letters, versus graphemes, but I need to
       implement something close to what a user expects, (or what I
       teach them to work with) and to have
       an element, or basic unit, that I can manipulate and design to
       in my software.

>I can work with 16-bit units as Unicode defines them, and I
       program to either provide users with behaviors based on these
       units (e.g. cursor-right moves through each unit, i.e. through
       each diacritic, tone mark, etc.) or I can
       provide users with a more complete element that users
       traditionally think of as a character (e.g. cursor-right moves
       to the next letter).

       This is what it's all about, people, not "we perceive our
       writing system this way, therefore Unicode must work this way".
       And please don't come back with, "so Unicode doesn't care about
       this or that language", because it's the implementers and
       software developers that need to worry about this or that
       language, not Unicode. Unicode needs to be adequate to meet the
       needs of the latter group as they do what they do in order to
       meet the needs of end users from the world's languages.


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