In a message dated 2001-01-29 15:39:12 Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > <quote> > Another is that it employs "language specifier codes," which are necessary > so that the correct sorting algorithms, for example, can be applied to data > in a multilingual environment. > </quote> > > I don't debate that language identification is needed for language-specific > processing, but I don't see any reason why attributing langids over runs of > text needs to be specified as part of the same mechanism and standard as > character encoding. This author presumably thinks that XML is also mistaken > in that character encoding and language identification are handled using > distinct mechanisms. [U+E0001][U+E0065][U+E006E]On the other hand, if you really do want language tagging to be part of the character encoding, Unicode can accommodate you too.[U+E0001][U+E007F] No, but really, we've heard most of the central themes of the TRON diatribe before: American software companies, particularly Microsoft, have strongarmed -- I think TRON used the word "bullied" -- the rest of the world into accepting a character encoding standard that doesn't address East Asian needs (since no Americans or American companies could ever understand them). It doesn't include all the CJK characters that people might need to use, it obliterates the critical differences between C, J, and K by unifying Han characters (and provides no language tagging mechanism to make up for it), it is limited to 65,536 character positions, and worst of all, IT CAN NEVER BE CHANGED. It is fixed in place forever. Thankfully, we have visionary masters like Sakamura-san who can solve all these problems. Did anyone notice the exorbitant prices for the TRON literature? And the fact that no TRON character charts are available online, at least not for free? Gosh, this isn't one of those hated PROPRIETARY standards, is it? Sorry for the sarcasm. Some people annoy me. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
