"Carl W. Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > To: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MichKa, > > This is an equal opportunity forum intended for discussion of issues > > relative to Unicode, an industrial consortium that includes (among many > > others) the companies you are talking about. Excessive anti-ANYONE talk is > > really not productive. > I disagree with Philippe's message in that I think that it is based on > Microsoft's determination to follow the idea that browsers are not > applications but part of the OS. This means that IE can become more Windows > specific. The Unicode aspects are that if browsers are extensions of the OS > that how will browsers perform that are build on non-Unicode based OSes? But surely Mac OSX has been designed to support Unicode ?? How much longer will we need browsers to run in operating environments that are non-Unicode based? > Let us hope that this drop of support will result in a browser that is > specifically designed to provide good Unicode support on a non-Unicode OS > rather than adding Unicode support to a piece of code that was designed for > an OS with integrated Unicode support. > Browsers have become a critical par of even transitional application where > developers have chosen to use browsers even for locale application because > it can solved many i18n and Unicode support issues if the browsers have good > support. Since MS Office 20003 seems to be heavily based on XML, it looks to me like end user applications are in effect becoming specialised XML browsers / editors. - Chris
