Sorry, I could not resist:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Philipp Reichmuth wrote: [..] > > Oh, the difference is probably that from this category of pages, you > can cut&paste into Word without garbling up your data because it uses > a *standard* encoding as opposed to the complete chaos of Hindi web > pages using their own fonts. Does that count as justification for > Unicode? [..] Please do not refer to MS Word. If Unicode Consortium had not listened to the industrial push of Micsrosoft to support their existing and broken standard, we would have a much better and cleaner character standard now. I don't think a character standard should go in the arena of typesetting to the extent Unicode does. I think it should provide clean and easy character standard with presentation forms that can be unambiguously put on a character based text terminal with no fancy typesetting features. Then if you want to typeset, go to the next level. As for cut & paste, it might work among Microsoft Apps but if one wants to interface an app with a disclosed clipboard format he will realize that he can not paste unicode text that contains '\u0000' characters. Impossible. And how about UCS-4 ? Forget it. As a text format it is not even existent. I think it would be much better to look for another benchmark engine. If I were Unicode Consortium I would build one. Just to prove that the standard works. Wait... maybe it does not? Thanks for your attention, I am really bad I know :) cheers gaspar
