RE: Updated article: Who uses Unicode?

> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp]
> Sent: 07 September 2010 01:50
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: 'Gunnar Bittersmann'; www-international@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Updated article: Who uses Unicode?
> 
> Hello Richard,
> 
> The article says, at the end:
> 
> "You can add a logo to your page provided by the Unicode Consortium if
> it validates as UTF-8 using the W3C validator."
> 
> It would be really good if you were giving an actionable link, rather
> than putting the reader off by an apparent "there is something
> somewhere, go search for it yourself" attitude.

I added that and two other links - and added them in the translations too.

> 
> Also, you might mention that some famous Web frameworks, in particular
> Ruby on Rails (http://rubyonrails.org/) come with everything set up for
> UTF-8 out of the box. (I don't now about Web frameworks based on other
> programming languages.)

Yes, good point, but the list is endless really, and I think that the figures say enough already.  Btw, I wasn't intending to completely rewrite the article.

> 
> On 2010/09/06 19:35, Richard Ishida wrote:
> > I think it's being slightly more precise than actually needed, but I changed
> the text to
> >
> > It is sometimes assumed that Unicode encodings are popular "behind the
> scenes" but rarely used on the pages of major Web sites.
> >
> > And added a note:
> >
> > In this article, Unicode is short for a Unicode encoding.
> 
> Why not use the wording that I proposed in my mail yesterday?

Because I figured that the approach I took was the fastest and simplest fix.

RI