On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 01:28:53PM -0800, Edward Cherlin wrote: > > Hmm. Looks like Unicode language tags are a much better solution. > > Unicode language tags are heavily deprecated. Language tagging is > markup, and there is no point pretending you have plain text when you > mark languages.
Heavily deprecated? They were only added to the main body of the standard in Unicode 3.1, which isn't a year old. > If you want tagging in plain text, use a standard. As far as I can > tell, the best available standard for such things is XML, which > defines Unicode as its preferred character set. The reason these characters *exist* is for specifying the language where a markup language like XML isn't an option. That's the case with Ogg tags. > I see no reason to encode language in Ogg tags. Users should be able > to choose a Unicode fontset that suits their needs for displaying all > languages. The entire discussion is about the ambiguities that prevent displaying a character in its native form without extra information. If your needs include "use font A for language A, and font B for language B", and languages A and B share codepoints, you need language tagging in some form; no fontset will be able to figure it out. Feel free to show that no people exist who want to do that. -- Glenn Maynard -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
