Peter Kirk suggested...Well, yes, but several members of the consortium do produce such software. And indeed the software being used is produced by a consortium member. Perhaps the embarrassment should be more that member's, that their software is not Unicode compatible. Well, I guess they are working on it!
Interesting and a little embarrassing that Unicode's own documentation
is not Unicode compatible!
I don't think it's very embarrassing... The Unicode consortium after all doesn't produce book editing and typesetting software, we use other peoples' software.
I think it's rather amazing that we can now actually produce a PDF of the entire book. This is incredibly better than the situation ten years ago.Indeed!
In any case, perhaps you can you suggest a "Unicode conformant" authoring tool that is up to the task of editing and typesetting the standard itself? It must have at least the capability of Framemaker 6 (i.e., tables, figures, sectioning, table-of-contents, index, etc) whilst implementing the full standard, including all scripts... Even the ones that would be newly defined in the next version... ;-)Well, would Framemaker 7 do any better? Maybe Framemaker 8 will! :-)
Rick
Actually this is a serious problem hindering the deployment of Unicode. Many of the people I have been working with are reluctant to change from legacy solutions to Unicode because of the prospect that they will have to convert their data back into some different legacy solution for typesetting. A serious typesetting package with full Unicode capabilities, and no need to acquire separate versions for each script to be used, would find a large market worldwide.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
