Rick McGowan wrote:
> I'm quite, quite certain that claim is especially true for their Klingon
> support, since Unicode is so antique-20th-century and so very linguistically
> lame that it doesn't even support Klingon, despite the fact that (as the
> article claims) Klingon is one of the "12 languages that cover over 75% of
> the world's population". I mean, how could those Unicode people overlook
> support for Klingon? Sheesh...
In fact, of course, every extant Klingon text can be written with Unicode,
and indeed with ISO 646:1983.
-- There is / one art || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT