Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin (jefsey@jefsey.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 21:04:10 CDT

  • Next message: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin: "Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan"

    At 02:30 19/05/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
    >It iz extreemlee difikult too git peepul too caenj a wiedspred sistum, eevun
    >if it iz not az rashunul az it cuud bee, win dhu kosts uv dooeen soe or
    >veree hie. Dhu reezun dhat Yoonikoed waz suc u sukses wuz dhat dhu paen
    >kaazd bie dhee dhen-egzisteen olturnutiv, u *hyooj* muras uv kunflikteen
    >koedpaejiz, wuz soe veree muc hieur. Soe peepul kuud see u kleer benufit
    >dhat maed it wurth dhee ekspens.
    >
    >Dhu odz uv dhat hapining in dhu foerseeubul fyoocur foer dhee inkoedeen uv
    >tekst or, at best, miniskyool. Noebudee iz goeeen too caenj too u brand-noo
    >inkoedeen bikuz "BRACKET" iz mispeld oer biblikul heebroo iz sumwut moer
    >okwurd dhan it kuud bee; it iz for too kostlee.

    I see the impact of Franglish on you :-)

    May be will you want to read RFC 3869 to see what IAB thinks about the
    commercially funded contributions great but unfortunately limited
    contribution capacity. As for the Roman horses asses vs. British ponies
    asses dispute over NASA rockets, all efforts contribute. But at some stage
    - the Lords and the Congress must pass a bill - and States to put money to
    finalise, harmonise, correct .. and sometime impose what private searchers
    did not dare to dream (look at Gabriel Mouton, 335 years ago ....). The
    Unicode effort will last, but it is a major step ahead calling for other ones.
    jfc

    PS. If you do not know who Gabriel Mouton
    http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/origin.htm
    A pal of mine :-)

    >‚ÄéMark
    >
    >----- Original Message -----
    >From: "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk@qaya.org>
    >To: "Michael Everson" <everson@evertype.com>
    >Cc: "Unicode Discussion" <unicode@unicode.org>
    >Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 16:40
    >Subject: Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan
    >
    >
    > > On 18/05/2005 22:25, Michael Everson wrote:
    > >
    > > > ...
    > > > Even if it were, it remains the case that such "perfection" will still
    > > > build on the analysis of the world's writing systems which we are
    > > > doing today as we encode scripts and characters. It is not arrogance
    > > > to recognize that this work will, in fact, be used for centuries, if
    > > > our civilization endures. It is realistic assessment of the work of
    > > > analysis and encoding and its utility.
    > >
    > >
    > > On the other hand, future standardisers will no doubt recognise, as
    > > those of us who are not arrogant must do today, that there are
    > > inadequacies and limitations in some of "the analysis of the world's
    > > writing systems which we are doing today". Parts of the analysis will
    > > stand for centuries, if our civilisation survives, but other parts will
    > > be rejected as inadequate. And these future standardisers will seek to
    > > correct the ways in which these inadequacies have been incorporated into
    > > Unicode in ways which cannot be changed under the stability policy.
    > >
    > > --
    > > Peter Kirk
    > > peter@qaya.org (personal)
    > > peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    > > http://www.qaya.org/
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > No virus found in this outgoing message.
    > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    > > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.12 - Release Date: 17/05/2005
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 19 2005 - 10:07:43 CDT