🚀 go-pugleaf

Masataka Ohta (mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp) writes:
>Erland Sommarskog (sommar@enea.se) writes:
>>Seriously, I disagrees with the statement above, and I think most
>>other people do. Putting the language into the coding gives more
>>problems than it solves. How deal with umpteen instances of the
>>same character because it is treated different language?

This last sentence should of course end: "...because it is treated
differently in different languages."

>If an application must neglect language difference, it can do so in the
>application.

It must equalize all the umpteen instances, yes. And it better do if
the user is not going to be violent when he is told "you got the wrong
sort of 'W' here, please replace". But of course the application still
has to follow the language rules preferred by the user. But then what's 
the point with all these umpteen instances? None.

>>Unicode is a tool for complete solutions for the world in the 21st century.
>
>Disagreed. Perhaps, you are trying to force all the people in the world
>(or, at least Japanese) to use Latin alphabet only in the 21st century.

It occurred to me later that I should have said 10646 and not Unicode
here. I don't want to say neither this nor that about the CJK stuff, as 
I know nothing about these languages and scripts, but as I understand
it with 10646 you can later add separate instances for non-unified 
characters.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se