I think this discussion is getting rather pointless, and I'm sure other
people would agree, so let's take this discussion off this list.
> > What I am saying is that if you are going to resort to
> > preprocessing text
> > into glyph indices, then you might as well base it on Unicode
> > characters
> Why on earth? If a browser is incapable of handling Unicode,
> it would not
> even be able to handle your pseudo-Unicode.
> Moreover, a browser incapable of handling Unicode is also incapable of
> handling HTML, so it's place is the trash can.
Because the majority people surfing the Internet have UCS2 support, and not
full Unicode 3.x support.
> > and not dream up your own encoding format as you outline in
> > your previous mail.
> I am afraid you totally misunderstood my previous mail. I'll
> try to express
> myself better.
OK, so I am not advocating that browsers should render "badly formed"/"hack
encoded" Unicode, and you are not advocating that either. At most, I would
concede that you may need to resort to ugly solutions if you do want to show
certain languages on non-Unicode platforms (which is the case for most users
today), which may or may not be based on code points. There would not be any
reasons for using such approach for a browser or a platform with full
Unicode support. Enough said on this topic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 04:54:05 EDT