From: Patrick Andries (Patrick.Andries@xcential.com)
Date: Fri May 07 2004 - 18:18:22 CDT
firstname.lastname@example.org a écrit :
>Jony Rosenne scripsit:
>>A possible strong negative argument would be if having it would cause
>>problems for those who do not think they need it. For example, if it would
>>make searching more difficult. This argument has been raised, but I am not
>>convinced the possible difficulties are significant.
>This could be solved by making Phoenician and Hebrew base characters equivalent
>at the first level of collation.
[PA] I suppose this would be true in principle, but how long before this
is implemented in the **actual tools** used by user such as MS Word or
MS SQL Server ?
I think we have already discussed this here regarding the French
Canadian official sorting and Khmer sorting, which are still unavailable
on Windows. How much money for Microsoft in Phoenician sorting ? I'm not
aware the collation tables can be tailored by users in those tools (yes,
I know with a bit of tailoring ($) other tools from other manufacturers
could fit the bill).
In theory, I believe either way (a separate encoding or a unification
within the Hebrew block(*)) could be feasible. In practice, the
unification point of views is available right now. I suppose it depends
on one's outlook and preference. But is Unicode concerned with current
limitations ? Okay, another way : But is Unicode concerned with current
pragmatic usability ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 07 2004 - 18:45:26 CDT