Doug Ewell wrote:
> This ASCII-only requirement for submitting papers for a Unicode Conference
> continues to amuse me. I should think that UTF-8 at least would be
> acceptable.
At the risk of being viewed as a humorlous drudge, the
ASCII-only requirement is for submitting *ABSTRACTS* for
the conference. This is for the convenience of the conference
organizer, who has to pull together abstracts submitted from
all over and email them out to the review committee with
very short turnaround times.
I think we can all agree that email handling of Unicode (UTF-8 or
UTF-16), or for that matter any other character set besides ASCII,
is not exactly what one could call seamless or without problems
as yet. And the result would just be various trashed abstracts
that would require back-and-forth cycles between authors, organizer
and reviewers to try to get straightened out. As it is, the review
committee already deals with plenty of %2D %EC type trash in the
abstracts as it is. So this is just a matter of practicality,
given the application to hand.
The *PAPERS* for the conference can be submitted in pdf form or
other printable forms, and authors are free to use Unicode to their
heart's content, as long as the conference organizer has the
capability of printing the result legibly.
James Kass footnoted:
> From the announcement:
>
> (Close to the beginning of the text...)
>
> > > The Unicode Standard has become the foundation
> > > for all modern text processing.
>
> Irony can be a little bit funny and a little bit sad.
>
Perhaps we should just agree to keep in mind the eternal
caveat to that claim:
--except in email, where ASCII rules
--Ken ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 22:23:10 EST