- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 11:16:13 -0500
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: Andrew Cunningham <acunningham@slv.vic.gov.au>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, www International <www-international@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com>
Simon Sapin scripsit:
> >Some can only be implemented as Graphite fonts, OpenType implentations
> >aren't up to rendering them yet.
>
> What encoding would you use instead of UTF-8? How does it help?
Presumably a font-kludge encoding, one that maps either 0x00-0xFF,
0x80-0xFF, or U+F000-U+FFFF (the Microsoft dingbat range) to the needed
characters.
> As to languages that are not in Unicode yet, the fix is to add them
> to Unicode.
As you know, that takes several years and the cooperation of many, many
people, and has to compete for attention with numerous other proposals.
There is also the constant concern that the commercial enterprises
that have supported Unicode so far will decide that it is "commercially
complete", and that there is no longer any need to support new characters
for the benefit of Fourth World people who live in the back of beyond
and don't have a bean to contribute to the global economy.
> Web is fundamentally based on Unicode, this is not gonna change.
Hopefully.
--
Do I contradict myself? John Cowan
Very well then, I contradict myself. cowan@ccil.org
I am large, I contain multitudes. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2014 16:16:49 UTC