Re: Corrections to Glagolitic

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 05:50:40 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Corrections to Glagolitic"

    At 10:51 +0100 2005/05/17, Peter Kirk wrote:
    >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.

    It can be instructive to check the history of ASCII. See for example
    It says that the presently most widely used form is ANSI X3.4-1986.
    So that standard has been in active use only 19 years.

    So if ASCII based software now switches to use say UTF-8 instead,
    which does not seems to be so difficult to achieve, the 25 year limit
    on active use may apply to that one, too.

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 05:51:54 CDT