Re: Tech: Unicode (was...)

Philippe Caquant said:
> I can't see the point.
It was a joke.

Short, non-joking answer: If I absolutely need to show something to
members of this list that is in Cyrillic, Greek, Armenian, Georgian or
anything else that many people's mail clients won't render properly, I'll
find a way to put it on a web page and post the link.

It's much more likely, though, that I'll just use some sort of Latin
transliteration and be done with it.

Either of these approaches will be orders of magnitude simpler than

1. me finding the hex unicodes for my string of special characters;

2. me putting the string of codes into an email without too many errors;

3. every subscriber who's interested preparing some sort of macro
mechanism that will translate my codes into the right glyphs (not knowing,
of course, if I'm going to spring Cyrillic, Tamil or Hangul on them this
week);

4. every subscriber who's interested pasting my string of codes into their
translation device and observing the result.


> (I yet wonder about this: are there different Unicode
> sets on the market ? For ex, are some code ranges
> sometimes used, sometimes not used ? In other terms,
> is it perfectly standard, or is it not ? What about
> evolution ?)
No. (You're confusing Unicode with its evil twin, Multicode.)
Yes. (I often fail to incorporate Hangul codes in what I write.)
Yes. (Perfectly standard.)
No. (Not not perfectly standard.)
What about it?

http://www.unicode.org/


-- Mark

Replies