On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> (Note that for the ISO-8859-6 and ISO-8859-8 encodings, RFC 1556
> implies "visual directionality", so you must use UTF-8 if you want
> implicit or explicit directionality!)
That will have benefits, but what do you want to do with existing setups?
Arabic (language) people rarely use visual charsets. You are somehow
deprecating 8859-6 with this decision. Also, what about WINDOWS-1256? I
have seen no visual usage of CP1256.
> d) character encodings other than UTF-8 with combining characters
> (so TIS-620 is not qualified)
So ISO-8859-6 and WINDOWS-1256 won't qualify.
> e) character encodings other than UTF-8 with ligature substitution
> requirements
Again, ISO-8859-6 and WINDOWS-1256.
> Software that knows about bidirectionality, combining characters and
> ligature substitution today can really also be expected to know about
> UTF-8.
I like that, but I think others will have problems buying those words.
Please note that I agree with the sense behind your suggestion, but I
cannot agree to the idealistic details. (Not that I'm not an idealist
myself ;))
roozbeh
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
