From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 17:31:21 EST
On 03/02/2004 10:44, Peter Constable wrote:
>>So, for example, in Jaguar I had been using a PUA-based cuneiform font
>>for file and folder names...
>New concept: filenames where the human-readable name is a user
>preference depending on the individual's PUA assignments.
Presumably these filenames are intended only for internal use within a
community of users who have agreed on a set of PUA assignments, whether
a cuneiform set or the SIL allocations we have been discussing. What if
the SIL team working on the Melpa language wants to assign filenames
according to the words in that language, including double-barred L?
Might it not seem rather sensible of them to use the (SIL PUA) codes
F20E and F20F, generated by their keyboards and displayed with their
fonts? The rest of the world might not be able to read the filenames
correctly, but why do they need to care about the rest of the world?
After all, only a few years ago Russian users were in a worse position,
they could use Russian characters in filenames in Windows 9x, but for
the rest of the world those filenames were not just illegible, they were
often treated as illegal. There may be fewer speakers of Melpa than of
Russian, but the principle is similar.
>There's progress for you.
It is progress when a system does what you want it to do rather than
deciding for you what you ought to be doing. You may not think what Dean
and his colleagues were doing was very sensible, but it obviously made
sense to them, so what was the point of banning it?
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 18:12:48 EST