Re: Greek chars encoded twice -- why?

From: spir (
Date: Fri Feb 19 2010 - 04:27:43 CST

  • Next message: spir: "Re: Greek chars encoded twice -- why?"

    On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:14:58 +0200
    Apostolos Syropoulos <> wrote:

    > > Yes, it is absolutely necessary. Converting from a legacy encoding to
    > > Unicode and back should be a lossless operation. How else would interchange
    > > between legacy systems, and Unicode systems work?
    > >
    > That's a problem that should concern those who still use legacy systems. In
    > addition, today to the best of my knowledge no one
    > is using 8bit Greek encodings. Finally, just because there are some people
    > using legacy systems, should we continue
    > supporting something that is wrong?

    I start to have the impression that, supposedly, compatibility with legacy character sets was (and still is) the source of various Unicode design flaws (*). Typically, they seem to add unneeded complication to a basically complicated problem. Maybe it's only me.
    Where can one find rationales for design decisions? I would like to change my mind for sensible reasons.


    (*) Including the #1 flaw imo: precomposed characters -- but again maybe it's only me. (As legacy formatted texts need to be "transcoded" anyway, mapping to a couple of codes in some cases is no big deal, is it? Also, this has to be done only once... And on the software side, unicode-aware apps *must* be able to cope with decomposed characters.)
    Ditto for eg duplicate codes, and for allowing "unordered" combining marks. (But these issues are not as problematic as precomposed characters.)

    la vita e estrany

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 19 2010 - 04:30:10 CST