Anne and John Your comments read as brutal and elitist. Do you have any idea of how long it takes to prepare and shepard through a Unicode proposal? How much work and resources it can take? The communities that need Unicode support don't necessarily have the resources or expertise to prepare the proposals. Recently a proposal went to UTC to disunify some charactrrs in the Myanmar block. The proposal was rightly rejected. I had a chat to one of the authors of that proposal. What was interesting was the reason for preparing the proposal in the first place. Essentially the problem was web browsers were precieved to have problems with displaying content in the languages in question. Essentially they were trying to get changes in unicode because of deficiences in web browsers. Most cases I know for use of what you refer to as hacks did not occur specifically because of lack of support of language in Unicode. It came as a specific consequence of lack of support in web browsers. Lets be honest here. It is easier to get unicode to add support than it is to get web browsers to add support. Andrew On 01/09/2014 4:40 AM, "John C Klensin" <john+w3c@jck.com> wrote: > > > > --On Sunday, 31 August, 2014 20:04 +0200 Anne van Kesteren > <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > > > > Writing systems that cannot be done in Unicode cannot be done > > on the web. There's no infrastructure in place for such > > systems. (Apart from PUA font hacks.) > > I agree. I believe that folks who have need for writing > systems not supported by Unicode should sort that out with > Unicode. Patience may be hard, but future interoperability and > compatibility problems are likely to be much worse. I made the > observation because there have been a number of comments on this > list and elsewhere that PUA font hacks, squatting on unassigned > code points, and use of private-use code points, all identified > as "UTF-8", are common practice. >
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2014 22:23:04 UTC