Yes, yes, I understood *that*.
I was kind of referring to the fact that if we coddle one implementer's
wish, then another (more common!) wish then rears its ugly head.
And of course now that the code points are encoded and its all considered
normative, they both share the same answer to anyone who asks them to
change. :-)
michka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Coxhead" <jonathan@doves.demon.co.uk>
To: "Unicode List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Unicode complaints
> Suzanne M Topping wrote,
>
> > In hunting around for negative opinions about Unicode, ...
>
> Markus Scherer wrote,
>
> > Let me add one complaint to your list:
> >
> > Thai is not stored/used in logical order in Unicode.
>
> and Michael Kaplan wrote,
>
> > And your suggestion for characters that sort *differently* in different
> > locales? You would want to add them multiple times?
>
> I think there is confusion here ...
>
> Whether a script is stored/used in logical order (as opposed to
presentation
> order) in completely unrelated to any collation order or algorithm: it's
> whether the characters are stored in the "spoken" order or the "written"
order
> (according to some algorithm for displaying them), where storage order is
> defined in terms of increasing memory addresses.
>
> The only relationship to collation is that you have to flip them into
> logical (spoken) order in order to collate them at all. Once you've done
that,
> you can still use the full Unicode collation algorithm to get whatever
effects
> your users require.
>
> I hope this sheds light rather than casting shadow ...
>
> /|
> o o o (_|/
> /|
> (_/
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:20 EDT