>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