On Thu, 2 May 2002, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> > That does make a very convenient excuse for insisting that the other guys
> > incur all the pain of conversion. Unfortunately, this does *not* help in
> > selling the idea, which was exactly my point.
>
> You misunderstood. *We* went through the necessary conversion pain
> already last century.
You misunderstood too. I'm talking about practical politics, not about
right and wrong. Inappropriate though it might be, you will have a much
easier time selling a conversion to North Americans if you have to convert
at the *same time*. "Oh, we converted long ago" is not a selling point;
"we think compatibility is important enough that we will join you in
sacrificing our current preferences and switching to a common standard" is.
It's not an accident that when a standards body adopts some existing design
as the basis of a standard, it often makes small changes and additions.
Quite apart from any *technical* merit that has, it means that the existing
design's current vendors have to make changes too; this helps sell the
new standard to people who will have to retool completely for it.
Henry Spencer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
