Re: Tech: Unicode (was...)

I can't see the point. As I said, nobody ever has
problems with characters in the ranges [A-Z], [a-z],
[0,9], plus some more. So why should we use
hexadecimal codes and macros for such characters ? If
you want to write and read normal English, then just
write and read normal English, since it is the poorest
and most basic set of characters. If you can't send
and receive a "e" or a "s", there you are really in
trouble, for sure.

The problem is about "special" characters some people
are likely not to get properly, for one or another
among 1000 possible reasons. For ex, I know that I
won't get cyrillic or arabic characters properly, and
that some people don't get me when I send french
vowels carrying accents. There are certainly very good
reasons for that, but I don't really care, what I want
is to exchange precise and reliable information when
needed. So I say the best way in such cases is to send
the Unicodes in an expanded form, and to use macros to
code and decode them, like I proposed. I'm sure there
are more clever and expensive ways to do the same, but
this is supposed to work in just any case, until we
find a better method.

For ex, you referred to Cyrillic "Ghe", while I called
it "Ge". This was supposed to be the same. If we had
used the proper hex-Unicode, there would have been no
ambiguity at all.

(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 ?)

--- "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 07:10:42PM -0500, Mark P.
> Line wrote:
> > Philippe Caquant said:
> > > Great. So I managed to make some little Word
> macro at
> > > last. Probably awfully badly written, but this
> is my
> > > first trial for such a thing !
> > >
> > > If you paste in a Word document an entry like:
> > >
> > >
>
410,411,412,413,414,415,416,417,420,20,661,662,663,664,665,666,667,668,669
> >
> >
> > I love it!
> >
> > Can we use that for all of our English text as
> well?
>
>
53,75,72,65,21,20,20,49,20,68,69,67,68,6c,79,20,72,65,63,6f,6d,6d,65,6e,64
> 20,69,74,21,d,a,2d,4d,61,72,6b

=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover

Replies