[I suggest to have this discussion on emacs-unicode mailing list, so I added it to the list of addressees.]
> From: Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 00:58:29 +0200 > > "Eli Zaretskii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Emacs cannot use a pure UTF-8 encoding, since some cultures don't want > > unification, and it was decided that Emacs should not force > > unification on those cultures. > > Why can't you continue to use the MULE code and just change the > character sets to reflect certain aspects of Unicode? The current plan for Unicode was discussed at length 3 years ago, and the result was what I described. I don't think it's wise for us to reopen that discussion again, unless you think the UTF-8-based representation is a terribly wrong design. > One such aspect > is Latin "unification", for example. (The Unicode people get very > annoyed if you talk about "unification", "source separation rule" etc. > in the context of non-Han scripts...) IIRC, the term "unification" appears early in the Unicode standard, not necessarily in conjunction with ``Han unification''. It is cited as one of the principles on the Unicode approach. So I don't see any reason for the unnamed Unicode people to get annoyed by a term they themselves coined. > In a second step, support for normalization, combining characters > etc. would have to be added, but this could be based on the reliable > foundation of the old MULE code. Conceivably, changing the internal representation doesn't mean we need to rewrite all of the existing code, just the low-level parts of it that deal with code conversions (i.e. subroutines of encoding and decoding functions). - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
