Thanks for the Fish, Marion!
We could meet at Milliway's and establish the back room setup there.
The compliance guidelines could then be called "Unicode's Guide to the
Galaxy". A 100% compliant system receives the rating '42'.
Non-compliant systems are processed by the Vogons.
Yes, right now my check list for Unicode compliance when contacting 3rd
parties looks more like this, the higher the number the better:
1. I know somebody who can spell Unicode.
2. I can spell Unicode.
3. Yeah, the specs say it works but we never tested it.
4. We tried it once, seemed to work.
5. We use Java, that's Unicode, right?
6. Yes, but we had to let the developer go who did it when we downsized
the last time, so I am not sure about the details.
7. Yes, and it is running with different languages in Europe.
8. Yes, and it is running with different languages in Asia.
9. Yes, it is running with several languages at once.
10. Yes, and we have bidi and complex scripting too.
That is about as far as I get, I can only dream of being able to get
details like David Starner described for compliance.
"`This must be Thursday,' said [Dave] to himself, sinking low over his
beer, `I never could get the hang of Thursdays.'"
--- Marion Gunn <email@example.com> wrote:
> Arsa James Kass wrote:
> > Any series of books which begins with the complete destruction
> > of Earth is bound to be amusing, eh?
> > Best regards,
> > James Kass.
> Book 4 deals more with the creation of a new/alternative earth,
> In any case, as this is way off-topic, might I bring it back, via my
> earlier suggestion, as elaborated on by David Possin (below).
> It's perfectly acceptable for Unicode to confine itself to providing
> tables as touchpoints for those (its consortium members and others)
> actually making builds implementing principles set out in its
> It would not require the whole consortium to get involved in the
> minutiae of what David describes below (a couple of boys in a
> could do it) via a sort of Tucows site set up, giving
> ratings, or even broad compliance with MES/BMP/whatever, with no
> guarantee of performance, beyond what David has indicated.
> Sounds like a real time-saver, or is that a real-time saver?:-)
> David Possin wrote:
> > It would be intereting and helpful to be able to find out if a
> > is Unicode-compliant before purchasing it. There are various test
> > institutions out there that perform that work for other standards.
> > don't think it would be Unicode.org's responsibility to provide for
> > certification, to avoid membership issues, maybe it should create
> > certification requirements, though.
> > I find myself wasting a lot of time figuring out if a third-party
> > product or a certain version can handle Unicode and/or up to which
> > version it is compliant to. I would like to be able to see a little
> > Unicode logo on a box stamped with a release number, making it the
> > manufacturer's responsibility to prove it. It works for operating
> > system releases and other stuff, why not here as well?
> > Dave
> > =====
> > Dave Possin
> > Globalization Consultant
> > www.Welocalize.com
> Marion Gunn * E G T (Estab.1991) vox: +353-1-2839396 * firstname.lastname@example.org
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Contae Átha Cliath; Éire
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jul 25 2002 - 08:39:39 EDT