Hello,
Welcome to the Unicode list, a discussion about the Unicode Standard. Over the past few days, Tex Texin and I copied you on some correspondence, including a few letters which were to the Unicode list. This was because we were mentioning you by name, and it seemed appropriate to cc you. I'm sorry that I didn't explain this at the time. The Unicode list is a rather large, international list. It's for the Unicode Standard and related topics rather than any specific software or application, even though at times we may focus on issues relating to display problems on one platform or another. Since many of our colleagues are in regions where internet access is restricted, limited, or charged by the minute, we tend to stick pretty much to plain text messages with the occasional tiny graphic attachment. To the list, sorry, there's really no way that Andrew could have realized this. Even the name in the reply is "Unicoders" rather than "Unicode List", and anyone could easily think that this was the name of an ad-hoc list set up for the Etruscan matter over the weekend. > I'm sorry my reply is not as quick as yours... But I had to finish one > interesting work that turned out to be useless ;-) We've probably all done something like this. > > If you ask about the results for OSes other than Windows2000 and > browsers other than IE -- I'll answer, "They are none". I expected to > make use of UTF-16, but in this case it's in no way better than UTF-8. > Neither Netscape Communicator 4 nor Mozilla (Netscape 6) support > surrogates (these are displayed as *two* character replacement > rectangles). However, even with surrogates disabled, MSIE 6 treats a > surrogate pair as a single character and draws a *single* character > replacement rectangle. > Tom Gewecke has reported that he can display non-BMP characters on his new Mac OS X. Lars Marius Garshol has reported that the new Opera 6 beta browser supports non-BMP ranges. There are some Netscape experts on the list, and Michael Kaplan had sent the Mozilla bug report numbers earlier. > And more... I start thinking that W3C's html validator > (http://validator.w3.org/) is completely out-of-date. It doesn't > recognize UTF-16, and it displays an error message when encounters a > decimal NCR with unicode scalar value greater than 65535: > > > Error: "66639" is not a character number in the document character set > > So all the test pages are not valid HTML 4.01. I think just about all of the HTML validators are out of date right now, all of this is still rather new. > > By the way, Java seems to interpret surrogates correctly. You can use a > Java applet (instead of HTML code) to generate glyphs... I think, if a > browser is clever enough to understand Unicode, it is probably > Java-enabled... > > That's all. Thank you for your patience. > Thank you for all your help. Please consider joining the Unicode list as a member, check out the Unicode web site at http://www.unicode.org for more information. Best regards, James Kass.
