Rick McGowan wrote:

> I'm quite, quite certain that claim is especially true for their Klingon
> support, since Unicode is so antique-20th-century and so very linguistically
> lame that it doesn't even support Klingon, despite the fact that (as the
> article claims) Klingon is one of the "12 languages that cover over 75% of
> the world's population".  I mean, how could those Unicode people overlook
> support for Klingon?  Sheesh...

In fact, of course, every extant Klingon text can be written with Unicode,
and indeed with ISO 646:1983.

-- 
There is / one art                   || John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
no more / no less                    || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things                   || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness                 \\ -- Piet Hein

Reply via email to