Hi, At Fri, 10 May 2002 14:58:21 +0200 (CEST), Bruno Haible wrote:
> Why is it more harmful if U+00A5 is an escape character than if U+005C > is an escape character? In both cases you just double it to get the > original character. I think you mean that softwares which treat U+005C as an escape character should be modified to treat also U+00A5 as an escape character. Am I right? Then, there should already exist data which contain U+00A5 which doesn't intent to be an escape character. > So it is a minor annoyance over the time of a few months, but by far > not the costs that you are estimating. For personal users, I think most people will accept the costs. However, Unicode is not only used by personal users, but also used by company users. They won't accept such costs. Think about Y2K problem. Companies, especially banks, electricities, gases, and so on had to take extreme care and huge costs. --- Tomohiro KUBOTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.debian.or.jp/~kubota/ "Introduction to I18N" http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/intro-i18n/ -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
