From: Behnam (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 23 2008 - 20:39:29 CDT
On 23-May-08, at 6:56 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> Because that kind of thing is not in scope for a *character*
> encoding standard.
> You are talking about the kind of functionality appropriate to markup
> languages and document format standards, instead.
> The "Uni" in Unicode does refer to "universal", among other things,
> but that should be construed as aiming for universal coverage of
> needed for the writing systems of the world -- not as implying
> a universal solution for *all* text-related display and
> processing problems.
I guess I understand that and I do respect the concept. I may be
wrong but my point would be what is the contradiction and harm in
having a language identifier for the paragraph with regard of that
concept. This will not delegate the encoding of characters to display
options and local interpretations. But the reality is that no matter
how many different space is encoded and how many semicolon is
encoded, the intended result is at the mercy of fonts and applications.
The French user would prefer to have one space and one semicolon key
on his keyboard and to type them as he wishes. Unicode does not
localize the encoded characters, but it could give an indication (for
those who are eager to know) in what context these characters are
This may not be satisfactory for this specific French case and I
won't argue about something I don't know. But it seems to me that
language identifier could resolve many similar cases to the
satisfaction of everybody with no adverse affect to the universality
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 23 2008 - 20:41:26 CDT