- From: klensin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:28:13 +0000
- To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
@Addison: Ok. If that is what the text is trying to say, let's at least made it clear which, as it now stands, it isn't... and, IMO, that same text is likely to become less clear to readers over time. The latter is a large part of what I'm concerned about, and it may be a fundamental philosophical problem. I believe that the number of people who will be using the Internet and designing and implementing systems a decade hence, and especially the number who don't think of things primarily in terms of English written in Latin Script, will be vastly larger than than number today. I want to see documents written now that speak to them, and are clear to them, at that time. I think (or at least hope) that means terminology based on Unicode code points and that, if some encoding on the wire other than UTF-32 is appropriate, it is UTF-8. If we have a legacy issue, or even a ship that has vanished over the horizon, I think we should be saying that explicitly and then either explaining things in modern/ contemporary/ future-looking terminology or or explaining things in the legacy language and then explicitly translating into modern terminology. If we cannot do that, it is hard to imagine how we can make things better over time... and I just don't want to believe that we are stuck with the mistakes of the past forever, not because they are so trivial as to not worth the trouble to fix (which, pragmatically, I think we a good excuse) but because we are so far stuck in the ancient tar pits that improvements are impossible. -- GitHub Notification of comment by klensin Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/i18n-activity/issues/216#issuecomment-244829557 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2016 01:28:20 UTC