Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Tue May 17 2005 - 10:07:09 CDT

  • Next message: Marion Gunn: "Re: Corrections to Glagolitic"

    On 17/05/2005 14:56, Doug Ewell wrote:

    > ...
    >It's usually considered better engineering practice to assume that a
    >building, a bridge, or a standard will be in existence for a long time,
    >and to build it so as to allow incremental upgrades such as earthquake
    >retrofitting, than to assume its imminent obsolescence and underengineer

    True enough, although one needs to be realistic about such things. There
    is no point in designing a car to last 50 years when its design is
    likely to be obsolete in 10. And one needs to allow for necessary
    incremental upgrades instead of sticking to over-restrictive stability
    policies. After all, when that earthquake comes, flexible structures are
    likely to survive, but the inflexible ones which rejected retrofitting
    are likely to collapse catastrophically.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.11 - Release Date: 16/05/2005

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 17 2005 - 10:08:20 CDT