From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Mar 13 2011 - 15:55:01 CST
Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Modifying all existing electronic text to include such an invisible
>> control character,
> Why « all » texts ? This was not in the proposal.
>> and requiring all users and processes to enter it reliably,
> Why « all » users ? Here again not in the proposal. In fact all
> characters are encoded for an undefined number of users, possibly
> small, but not for all users. The existence of the character would be
> there for those users for whom the difference does matter.
If users or processes who want to take advantage of this special
character cannot depend on it being there in all texts, it may as well
not be there at all, as they will have to fall back on the same
heuristics that they are trying to avoid.
In any case, I'd best get out of the business of telling users like QSJN
UKR that such-and-so character would be a bad idea or that Unicode will
not encode it, even if that is what I personally believe.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 13 2011 - 15:57:19 CST