Unicode certainly is pre-existing - we're in the 10th year of it in Windows
NT, and the 7th year in Office (if you count the start of development for
Office97 in 1994). We have plenty of pre-existing unalterable Unicode
implementations to interact with. (about 70 million copies worth). Our
legacy installed base is now more Unicode than not by a wide margin (for
Office, not Windows).
Group Program Manager
Sent with Office10 build2209 wordmail on
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: October 16, 2000 7:23 PM
To: Unicode List
Subject: RE: CJK combining components (was "Giga Character Set":
Marco Cimarosti <Marco.Cimarosti@icl.com> wrote:
> Carl W. Brown:
>> An article in the October 12, 2000 issue of Linux Weekly News
>> <http://lwn.net/bigpage.php3> tries to explain the benefit...
Actually, that quote from Linux Weekly News came from me, not Carl.
(I'm not trying to take credit for the research, just deflecting any
criticism away from Carl.)
David Starner wrote:
> ... Even if you have to work with preexisting Unicode technology,
> you could still make the font using that technology instead of doing
> everything by hand.
I did a double-take at that phrase, "preexisting Unicode technology."
Imagine that, Unicode being considered a legacy technology that one
"has to" work with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:14 EDT