From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Wed May 18 2005 - 10:56:23 CDT
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]
On Behalf
> Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
> I am afraid you have difficulty with logic.
> There is no problem with any of them separtedly.
Hmmm... Given that I said that none of them can be said to fail in its
intended purposes, and since none of those have explicit purposes that
depend on any other (i.e. are independent), you on the one hand say that
my logic is faulty yet on the other agree with me.
> But when you have orthogonal things to relate, as you want to in
several
> documents, you need to have a relational system.
I don't disagree; I was only objecting to the critique that ISO 15924 is
faulty because it isn't relational in the sense you refer to.
> As a computer you go by binary stuff. If a computer is to relate
French and
> Latn, it must have binary element it can compare using a program.
>
> Now, a person with a bit of logic will do the same.
>
> As long as you do not tell me what is in Latn, I cannot tell you if it
Latn
> applies to French.
If you want to dumb down to a level of not assuming anything that's not
stated explicitly, then you are right. I doubt there are many here who
operate that way on a regular basis.
> And please do not quote Unicode Character Set as a middle reference.
> It is not an ISO Standard, and it does not fully support French.
Not fully support French? Funny thing, then, that no national body of a
country with a significant Francophone population has been bringing
their request to WG2, and that no member of the Unicode Consortium
selling products to Francophone markets has been requesting changes
needed to meet the requirements of those markets. I'm curious to know
what the lacuna might be.
Peter Constable
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 18 2005 - 10:57:36 CDT