In a message dated 2001-02-26 22:41:53 Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The Klingon thing is a symptom. I was very enthused about Unicode
> when I first discovered it. Alas, it turned out to be just another
> "internalization the English way": We'll be happy to speak any
> language as long as it is English.
>
> A group of Anglos has decided what is a character. They welcome
> international input as long as it agrees with their own views.
> If we look at it differently, we simply do not "understand".
What does Klingon have to do with English domination?
> >The Klingon script (for better or worse) is not encoded in Unicode, and
> >there exists an active need (no matter how minor) for it to be encoded.
> >The Slovak 'ch' is encoded in Unicode, and any proposal for it to be
> >encoded is pointless.
>
> This is exactly what I am talking about. But I have no intention
> of restarting the "ch" debate, I just used it as an illustration.
> It does not make sense to an Anglo that "ch" could be a character,
> hence it is not. That it makes perfect sense to *us* is irrelevant.
Well, thank goodness you are not restarting the "ch" debate!
Forget about English or Anglos for a minute. They're not relevant to this
discussion. Just please answer the critical question that has been posed
many times:
What text operations could be performed, on Slovak or any other language,
with "ch" as a single code point that can NOT be performed using U+0063 +
U+0068?
Also, have we determined yet whether ANY existing character set standards,
including those designed by Slovaks or Slovak speakers, includes a separate
code point for "ch"?
> Unicode is a good way for Anglophones to "deal" with other languages.
> And to put pressure on other languages to do it the superior English
> way.
There is no substance to this statement at all, only frustration and anger.
> Just recently someone said in this forum that Slovak is the same as
> Czech. What's the point of even trying when foreign experts know our
> languages better than we do?
Read the post again. Keld Simonsen was saying that he believed the POSIX
locales for Slovak and Czech -- not the languages themselves -- were the
same. If Keld was mistaken, it would help all of us for you to set the
record straight.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
