Stewart Stremler wrote:
I think the problem is that unicode tried to solve the wrong problem.
The real problem wasn't "how do we let everyone have single-character
glyphs", but "how do we let people write in their own language on a
computer". Since we're ready to accept bloat at the outset, a better
approach (to my way of thinking) would be to toss out ANSI, stick with
ASCII, and redefine those ANSI characters as indicators for variable
length strings that should constitute a glyph.
That pretty much describes UTF-8. So, what is your particular beef with
UTF-8?
Heh. My issue *is* Unicode. I believe that Unicode was a solution that
was arrived at early and all the brainpower was put into making it work
instead of asking "is this the right thing to do?" This is often the
case with smart people, I find... they *can* make it work, so they don't
stop to think about whether it's worth it.
I disagree. Completely. Unicode means that I can just have a single
"String" abstraction that works across multiple human and computer
languages.
The cacophony of "String" data types in various programming languages
and libraries prior to Unicode shows that a solution was needed. I
don't see how any other solution will avoid dealing with the same issues
as Unicode addressed.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
