- From: Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:10:17 -0500
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org, W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
\2009/2/11 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:12:55 +0100, Ambrose Li <ambrose.li@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Pardon my ignorance too, but this is complete news to me. As far as I >> can tell the discussion was not "revolved around" input methods at >> all. IME was part of the discussion, but in no way was the focus. > > As far as I can tell Henri is right. The reason the i18n WG wants this > solved on the user agent side is because the authoring side is inconsistent > in chosing a particular Unicode Normalization Form. But "user agent" does not equal "input methods". Even if you solve the problem with input methods, you still may encounter content that is not normalized. Even if we discount generated content, you still have to deal with "old" content. Just solving it in "input methods" does not solve anything. -- cheers, -ambrose The 'net used to be run by smart people; now many sites are run by idiots. So SAD... (Sites that do spam filtering on mails sent to the abuse contact need to be cut off the net...)
Received on Wednesday, 11 February 2009 14:10:56 UTC