From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 28 2003 - 01:45:47 EDT
I would not go that far, John.
Dead keys are fine when they are intuitive and what the user expects -- and
in a lot of Europs this is indeed the case.
"Keyboard mappers" and Unicode in no way change these facts, and to tell you
the tuth I have trouble seeing them as even being related at all (dead key
entries have been in Unicode since NT 3.1 on all NT-based systems, and show
no sign of slowing down).
I disagree with the general thrust of Thomas Milo's comments (after speaking
with several friends of mine in the Netherlands), but that has little to do
with the fact that dead keys are about as prehistoric as any functionality
that is used by hundreds of thousands of users? :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Fiscella" <email@example.com>
To: "Thomas Milo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "John M. Fiscella" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
<email@example.com>; "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
"Andy Abbar" <andyab@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] multilingual support in MS products (was Re: Kurdish
> Message text written by "Thomas Milo"
> >I disagree - there is the US International Keyboard, an existing pattern
> for using dead keys. But the user cannot be confused by this, for him or
> her it will be an improvement of contextual behaviour.<
> But the use of dead keys is prehistoric, now that Unicode is here and
> keyboard mappers are available.
> John F.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 28 2003 - 02:21:32 EDT