[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Blueberry (non-ASCII name characters in Japan)
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 17:31:16 -0400
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>> Greeks want to write Greek in the Greek script.
>> Wherefore it is encoded in Unicode and other encodings, and
>> allowed in XML names.
> But these are not the same thing. Greek was in Unicode 2.0, and
> therefore could be included in XML names without significant cost.
I have already addressed this finders-keepers-losers-weepers
> But the
> question we have to answer today is whether there is sufficient
> benefit to adding the Yi script today, to justify breaking the
> entire existing XML infrastructure, and introducing more
> incompatibility into the XML world.
I think you exaggerate the degree of non-uniformity. There are
already a lot of options in XML processing.
> Given that the Yi language can
> be used in XML markup today, even if the Yi script can't, I don't
> think the possible benefits outweigh the costs.
There is a lot of benefit to Yi users, and some disbenefit to
programmers and their employers. Short of a pure market
mechanism (in which case nothing but Latin and perhaps Japanese
would have made it in at all), how are we to compare these
benefits and disbenefits?
> Do you really think that all 800 million Spanish speakers are going
> to start writing markup in Spanish? That all one billion Chinese
> speakers are going to start writing markup in Chinese? It's
> ridiculous to assume that more than a tiny minority of speakers are
> going to write markup in any language, no matter how well
It's ridiculous to suppose that I meant anything of the sort.
There is all the difference in the world between "few, by choice"
and "none at all, by compulsion".
If I were a regular user of XML and one of the affected languages,
I would insist that the parsers available to me allowed markup
in my language, and the XML Recommendation be damned. (There
are non-conformant parsers such as Aelfred that can do the job.)
Since I would probably not be able to vote with my wallet, I
would have to rely on those with deeper wallets, or louder
voices, to get the job done.
> OK. So propose an alternative. How do you suggest proving that
> there's a genuine need to write markup in these scripts?
I think that talk of *need* is misconceived; as I said, there is
no *need* to have Greek, much less Thaana, markup. People *want*
to use their own language, that's all. Why should the "newer"
script users be exempt from this desire?
There is / one art || John Cowan <email@example.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein