Philippe Caquant said:
>
> You may put in on a web page if you have a Web site,
> but I haven't. I think I'm not the only one in this
> situation.
Google for "free web pages" and pick a host that looks reliable.
> The Latin tranlisteration is of course not
> satisfactory, because everybody will use his own
> transliteration, just as I do when I'm trying to
> transliterate Russian for ex. Why should I write "Ja
> ne znaju" (I don't know) when I could write "Ya nie
> znayou", which would be much more understandable to
> French people ?
Why would you use French transliteration of Russian in an English post?
> And how could somebody know that "ju"
> (or "you"), and "ja" (or "ya") are single letters in
> Cyrillic if he didn't study Cyrillic first?
What is it that your macro-processed, numerically presented Cyrillic is
supposed to communicate to anybody who has not studied Cyrillic first?
> How
> should I differentiate the "e" in "eto" (this) and the
> e in "ne" (no), using only US standard characters ?
How have you been doing it? Was everybody all confused?
> (I'm sure everybody has his own solution, which is
> just the problem). How should I write French "e
> acute", "e grave", "e trema", "e circumflex" ?
How have you been doing it? Was everybody all confused?
> If you have the right macro, you could have in one
> window the e-mail message, in another window a Word
> document including the macro, so you would just do
> copy/pastes and button-clickings (for ex) to translate
> everything properly, without having to think about
> anything.
I don't use Word.
> Thanks for the address, very interesting, and awfully
> complex as it seems. But after just a 3 minutes-look,
You might give it another minute, just to be sure.
You can google for simpler tutorials on Unicode, of course.
> I already noticed that there are many successive
> versions of Unicode (which is quite understandable),
> including complements but also changes, so clearly
> there is not one Unicode but many different versions
> of Unicode, even if the most usual codes are probably
> not affected from one version to the next one. So
> Unicode is Unicode only insofar you and me share the
> same version.
As you say, these are *successive* versions of the Unicode standard, not
*alternate* versions (that's one of the things that makes it a standard).
There's no reason why you and I wouldn't be sharing the same version of
Unicode: the current one. It's like phone books: always use the most
recent one you can get.
-- Mark