🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DwqPwB3w165w@blues.kk.sub.org>
	kosta@blues.kk.sub.org (Kosta Kostis) writes:

>UniCode is limited because everything is squeezed into 16-bit, but
>for latin languages (and the like) it's just fine.

>>    In reality it means that Unicode is not a solution for
>>    typesetting.

>Come on. What did you expect? A universal character set is not the
>"solution", it's just intended to help you develop it.

>I agree that UniCode is not very good for Asian languages, but
>for European languages (and some more) it's really OK.

Then, could you get out of here, comp.std.internat?

>10 bits? You want to keep Asian languages out of the game, too?  :-)

Or, you want to keep Asian languages out of the game, too?  :-|

>Should
>we ever decide to use the full 32-bits ISO 10646 intended to
>allocate for character codes, we should be able to cover almost
>all languages (to some extend).

Full 32 bit? 18 or 20 bits will be suffice for the real universal
character code set.

>Who defines "required"? This is a classical "don't care about the
>users culture/needs" approach that was so harmfull in the past.

ISO 8859-1 is not very good for all European languages, but
for central European languages (and some more) it's really OK.

Then, you wrote:

	I agree that UniCode is not very good for Asian languages, but
	for European languages (and some more) it's really OK.

What was so harmful in the past? What you are repeating?

>The other languages you stated, like Russian, Greek and English
>seem to be served well by UniCode, I think.

But, as for reg-exp pattern, Vadim's suggestion is quite right.

					Masataka Ohta