From: Richard Wordingham (richard.wordingham@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 03:17:26 CDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: "Unicode Mailing List" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 5:03 AM
Subject: Re: Languages supported by UTF8 and UTF16
> Richard Wordingham <richard dot wordingham at ntlworld dot com> wrote:
>
>>> Considering what canonical decomposition means, and that e.g. U+006F
>>> U+0301 is absolutely identical to U+00F3, that distinction, however
>>> clear, is meaningless.
>>
>> However, they may render differently!
> I know people hate to hear this phrase, but This Is Not Unicode's
> Problem.
I didn't say it was Unicode's problem. It's actually an example where in a
font taking advantage of the renderer's lay-out capabilities, you can be
better off with non-precomposed characters. This old font is actually not
so clever in laying out diacritics, and the result can be a disappointment.
As a practical question of support, how usefully is Burmese actually
supported? The encoding is there, at least for the vast majority of the
everyday Burmese language, but do renderer limitations still stop it from
being used in widely used text-processing software? I certainly can't use
the Unicode encoding in a web page yet, and I'm using Windows XP SP 2 and
Firefox or IE 6.0. I suppose it isn't Unicode's problem if the encoding
can't yet be used.
Richard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 03:19:19 CDT