On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 05:38:29PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Certainly some people want to. I'm arguing that they don't need to. > > > >Protocols should only let people do what they absolutely *need*, nothing > >more? > > Protocols shouldn't waste space on useless features that won't be used.
If it's not used, it takes no space. (Edward seems to agree that some people want to use it, however.) Clients will need to be able to deal with these tags anyway; they need to be able to handle text containing them sanely. Why is Unicode tagging any less likely to be used than XML tagging? It's certainly easier to implement; you don't need an XML parser. > How many systems will support it? The HTML "lang" tag is used and implemented. This is much lighter than that, of course, and has similar uses. > How many Japanese want the titles of songs displayed in a Chinese font? > (Remember that it will be displayed in Japanese by default, so the only > issue is when the title is Chinese.) Some people apparently think there's a need (or at least, in the reverse). My preference, as a native speaker of neither of these languages, would be to display Japanese with a Japanese font and Chinese with a Chinese font, and I would be surprised if there were very few people with this preference. -- Glenn Maynard -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
