From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 18:39:00 EST
On 02/12/2003 14:19, Frank Yung-Fong Tang wrote:
>
> A better approach than asking "Does product X support Unicode 4.0"
> which in some way you can always get a NO answer is to
> 1. Define a smaller set of functionality (Such as MES-1, MES-2, MES-3A)
> 2. Ask 'Does Product X Support MES-1? Does Product X Support MES-2?...
I disagree - if we are talking about a system rather than a font.
Supporting subsets is a dead end, and a barrier to proper
internationalisation. It would be much better for developers to realise
that from the start they need to build in support for the whole Unicode
character set. Once Arabic, one Indic script and Plane 1 are supported,
the rest is relatively easy; all the data required are in the UCD, and
the shaping details can be left to the font. The alternative of bolting
on ad hoc support for extra scripts later, when they become necessary,
just causes extra work.
A product can thus claim to support Unicode 4.0 rather easily, if it
makes the caveat that its font and perhaps keyboard support is limited
to certain scripts. Users interested in more unusual scripts can then
supply their own specialised font, or a general (but inexpensive) one
like Code2000.
And I would think that MS Windows 2000/XP is quite close to being able
to make this claim, as long as you ignore the outdated Character Map (a
prime example of needless subsetting!) and use an alternative like
BabelMap. For one big advantage of the approach I suggest is that an OS
can even anticipate future versions of the standard, as long as no major
new properties are added.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 02 2003 - 19:23:53 EST