🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1ii3ctINNp4c@rodan.UU.NET> avg@rodan.UU.NET (Vadim Antonov) writes:
>All languages have a default sorting -- namely the one which is used in
>dictionaries.

Wrong.  Many writing systems have no single default.  Dictionary orders
are not unique in many writing systems.  For example, Tibetan, Burmese,
Vietnamese, just to name a few, have more than one dictionary ordering.
Different dictionaries in these languages often use different orders.

>They [10646 and Unicode] share the common design philosophy and the same
>fundamental mistakes.

Wrong.  They share the same fundamental strengths.  The only fundamental
mistake being discussed is the blind optimism of a few people
who think they can create perfection ex nihilo.  Perhaps you've been
overly influenced by some sort of utopian ideology?

>Then, we don't need one more sloppy standard.

Why don't you go reinvent history in your own image?  I'm sure you
will be so careful as to eliminate any sloppiness.

>10646 is inadequate for true multinationalization because it breaks
>existing OS semantics.

Existing OS semantics have no concept of multinationalization.  They
won't become fully multilingual without important changes.
For someone so little concerned with historical compatibility, you seem
overly invested in current OS technology.

Rather than continuing your foaming-at-the-mouth-diatribe against something
which -- as you've admitted -- you don't even have time to read about, why
don't you go off for a few years and create your ultimate perfection of
a character set, convince a large number of computer vendors that it is
worth implementing, then make sure it becomes an international standard.
When you've finished, come back and tell us how different it is from
Unicode/10646.  I am eagerly awaiting your report.

Glenn Adams