I am not sure. To DJW's RE: Positive Re. Symbolic Name...

(NOTE: It is continuation of previous messages with the subject having
words Symbolic Name.)

	Dear sirs:

[Dave J Woolley wrote:]
> Also, HTML has never been US-ASCII (it was devised by an Englishman
> in Switzerland!).

[Cyril]
	Frankly, I has no knowledge about first steps of HTML in first half of
the 90s. But I know that in those days, there was the only one
international character set which was presented in any national
character set. It was the US-ASCII (Latin-1). Besides I heard that SGML
declaration of HTML contained follows:
"
<!SGML  "ISO 8879:1986"
    --
         SGML Declaration for HyperText Markup Language version 3.2
 
         With support for ISO Latin-1 ...
"
	So I am not sure what does it mean: "HTML has never been US-ASCII?" May
be it mean that HTML have never been just mentioned as US-ASCII based,
isn’t it?
	By the way hitherto the national character sets handled they job well
without any Unicode. Sometimes I ask myself whether the Unicode really
exists, whether it isn’t a myth.

	Ladies and gentlemen, could you have a look at your keyboard. How many
keys does it have? Has it 50,000 Unicode keys? What letters is every
computer keyboard in each country exactly supplied with? Isn't it
Latin-1 set? Could you image a keyboard with 50,000 Unicode keys?

[Dave J Woolley wrote:]
> Current HTML is Unicode.

[Cyril]
	If so then could you try to prepare an HTML-page with for example
Greek/Arabic keyboard, i. e. keyboard which has not US-ASCII (Latin-1)
keys, while I'll try to do the same with keyboard supplied with Latin-1
keys only. Something tells me that my job will be much more easy
especially with symbolic names.

	It seems to me to be advisable relaying on widest deployed alphabetic
base for internationalization purpose, i. e. on the Latin-1.


	Regards,
	Cyril, Esq.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I still hope to introduce the proposal in 6 months.

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 09:40:26 UTC