From: John Hudson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 14:51:23 EDT
At 11:16 AM 5/28/2003, Edward H Trager wrote:
>On Wed, 28 May 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > I don't really think we are trying to say that a Web page is
> > "knowledgeable" about Unicode, but rather that it "uses" or "takes
> > advantage of" Unicode. How about "Powered by Unicode"?
>I don't think "powered" is the right word. "Unicode Compliant" is more to
>the point. Also, I think it would be easier to get reasonable
>translations for "compliant".
Compliant is a problem term, as compliance is a problem concept. I believe
we discussed, some months ago, the problem of claiming compliance for
systems or applications, since very little (any?) software implements
everything in Unicode or implements everything equally well. What would it
mean to say that a website is 'Unicode compliant'? Is there any point in
proclaiming a website 'Unicode compliant' if the visitor is using a browser
that is *not* Unicode compliant insofar as being able to correctly display
Magda wrote: 'Very often the Unicode Consortium has received requests from
webmasters who wished to indicate with a logo or banner that their site
supports or uses Unicode.' It seems to me that these webmasters are asking
for something that doesn't really mean anything except, presumably, 'Get
your UTF-8 here!'
So before critiquing the design of the logo -- ugly though it is --, or
redesigning it, I think it would be a good idea to clarify the purpose of
Tiro Typeworks www.tiro.com
Vancouver, BC firstname.lastname@example.org
If you browse in the shelves that, in American bookstores,
are labeled New Age, you can find there even Saint Augustine,
who, as far as I know, was not a fascist. But combining Saint
Augustine and Stonehenge -- that is a symptom of Ur-Fascism.
- Umberto Eco
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 16:17:56 EDT