Re: minimizing size (was Re: allocation of Georgian letters)

From: Michael S. Kaplan (
Date: Thu Feb 07 2008 - 05:22:27 CST

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: minimizing size (was Re: allocation of Georgian letters)"

    From: "Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven" <>

    > Sorry Michael, but to me this makes no sense logically.

    Having flown halfway around the world to talk to people who for whatever
    reasons, both valid and invalid (and not really distinguishing which is
    which on their list of concerns), are unhappy with a language encoding that
    in their view doubles or worse the amount of bytes used to store their
    language in Unicode, I can tell you that this as very real concern on some
    people's minds.

    True or false, it is on their minds. They can all add and multiply, and it
    certainly looks like a 2x or 3x situation to them.

    And we get a lot further by acknowledging their concerns and then showing
    them that they have less to be concerned about than they think, in the end,
    then we ever would by telling them there are wrong, wrong, wrong.

    And since one of the additional concerns they have expressed is that had
    their script been encoded differently, they'd need fewer bytes, AND give
    them the encoding they wanted anyway,once again dismissing their desire to
    understand the history is dismissing THEM and that is not the way to have a
    conversation -- that is the way to lecture.

    Believe me, I know -- I am doing it to you now. :-)

    Now look, I do not agree with the arguments. But it does seem unfortunate
    for the people in the one-byte and two-byte space who mostly like how their
    scripts are encoded and have great hardware and broadband to be lecturing
    the three-byte folk with older hardware and less infrastructure and less
    broadband on how their worries are spurious and their desire for
    understanding why is pointless.

    TALKING to people, explaining, without that implicit "you idiot" tacked on
    to each sentence gets people a lot further.

    It makes much more sense to:

    1) acknowledge their concerns
    2) explain the history
    3) show them how their concerns can be minimized, and why things are not as
    bad as they seem

    after which people are guaranteed to be (if not happier with the situation)
    then at least less unhappy with it. And with us....

    Anyway, that is all I am trying to say. Hopefully people will think before
    they respond once they see they do not have to convince me of anything -- I
    *know* it isn't a problem -- they just need to have a more constructive
    approach to people who ask the questions. :-)

    MichKa [MS]
    Windows International
    (though speaking just for me)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 07 2008 - 05:25:34 CST