From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jul 08 2004 - 19:41:15 CDT
From: "Michael Everson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> I think it's stupid (in general) to argue for stripping a letter of
> diacritics. If a reader is ignorant of their meaning, that can be
> cured. But if they are meaningful, stripping them is just misspelling
> the words they belong to. Why would anyone want to do that?
I think its inadvisable (in general) to call things stupid merely because
one does not see the need. on the whole, that is a better time to ask the
question than to make the judgment.
There is actually a great deal of both European and American data in
programs like Microsoft Exchange and Outlook, as well as in web search) that
folding away diacritics as a part of giving full lists of possible matches
is indeed preferred by users. Now they would (also) prefer the exact matches
to have priority, but having additional matches without the diacritics is a
common request, and one that has been built into many scenarios.
Formalizing that operation in Unicode is only a bad thing (or a stupid
thing, to use your words) if creating a standard that meets real world needs
(as opposed to ideal typographic or linguistic preferences) is considered a
bad (or stupid) thing.
As far as I know, most of the members of the Unicode Consortium have those
real world use cases as their first priority.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 08 2004 - 19:42:31 CDT