- From: Philip TAYLOR (Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:31:48 +0000
- To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- CC: Jonathan Kew <jonathan@jfkew.plus.com>, Andrew Cunningham <andrewc@vicnet.net.au>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Henri Sivonen wrote: > My point is that it's generally not helpful to bring out the Western > bias[1] thing in discussions of using Unicode in computer languages. > Previously, too, performance has been preferred over full natural > language complexity for computer language identifier equality comparison > and in that instance clearly it could not have been an issue of Western > bias. The thing is that comparing computer language identifiers code > point for code point is the common-sense thing to do. With respect, it is the /simplest/ thing to do. For those who work in anything more complex than English, it is probably anything /but/ "common sense". > If you consider > the lack of case-insensitivity, some languages are not perfectly > convenienced. If you consider the lack normalization, another > (overlapping) set of languages is not perfectly convenienced. If you > consider the sensitivity to diacritics, yet another set of languages is > not perfectly convenienced. No language is prohibited by code point for > code point comparison, though. Yet for many (perhaps most) of the world's languages, comparison by code-point is noticeably sub-optimal. Philip TAYLOR
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 15:32:29 UTC