Re: Corrections to Glagolitic

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 04:51:22 CDT

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Corrections to Glagolitic"

    On 17/05/2005 08:08, Doug Ewell wrote:

    >Alexander Kh. <alexkh at writeme dot com> wrote:
    >>When the Unicode standard becomes too "academic", it is never too
    >>early or too late to create a new precise standard. I suppose I am
    >>talking to an old man who does not believe that he will outlive the
    >>current "immutable" standard.
    >Either that, or someone old enough to have seen too many other
    >"standards" in the computer industry become unusable because of constant
    >tweaking and "improving" of their key elements. There is something to
    >be said for stability.
    Whether tweaked or not, the useful life of most standards in the
    computer industry has been very low. Few of the ones in use 25 years ago
    are still in active use now, although some remain as subsets of more
    comprehensive standards (which is the alternative to improving the
    standard). Any suggestion that Unicode will be around much beyond the
    lifetime of its current proponents is sheer arrogance. I know someone
    has suggested that it will last for 1000 years. I am reminded of what
    happened to the Reich which was supposed to lat 1000 years.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 16/05/2005

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 04:53:47 CDT