Re: Surrogate points

From: D. Starner (
Date: Fri Feb 04 2005 - 15:30:42 CST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Surrogate points"

    "Hans Aberg" writes:

    > The discussion at hand was clearly about character sets in a context other
    > than supporting the needs of a few vendors. It is good to understand the
    > context of the discussion at hand before replying.

    Not a few vendors; every major operating system on the market, every major
    editor on the market, several governments directly, dozens of governments
    via ISO, Project Gutenberg, Summer Institute of Linguistics...
    > So engineers should attempt to leave
    > as many doors as possible open for the experts at linguistics. If there is a
    > consensus among a wide range of linguists, then that could be made into a
    > standard.

    You do realize that Ken Whistler holds a Ph.D in Linguistics?

    > An unmotivated statement, typical of Kenneth Whistler's style. If the
    > description I got was right, that Unicode tries to enforce that Arabic
    > numbers should not be represented in the order they are written and read,
    > but in reverse, the linguistic error is so big that the Unicode consortium
    > will make big fools of themselves in front of every person familiar with
    > that language.

    Who cares how it's "represented"? That's not a linguistic error, that's
    at best an engineering error. The standard could require that English be
    stored as ideographs tagged as English internally, and as long as nobody
    running Word or Emacs could tell the difference, it's purely an engineering

    By the time you start to insult people and rant, you had better be beyond
    the "[i]f the description I got was right" stage. You can _sometimes_ get
    away with it if you're dead right, and everyone knows it, but even then,
    politeness demands, well, politeness.

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 04 2005 - 15:33:17 CST