Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

[Murata Makoto <mura034@attglobal.net>]

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:

> That argument was very unconvincing. He explained why the Japanese 
>support XML already has is quite important to Japanese users. But we 
>already have that. Nobody's arguing that we take it out. He said that 
>Microsoft should improve its tools to better support XML 1.0. Lord knows 
>I agree with that.
> 
> He indicated one character from Unicode 2.0 and earlier that would 
>clearly be useful to Japanese users as a name character, the Katakana 
>middle dot. I've wondered before why that one got left out of name characters 
>in XML. It's worth fixing if we do revise XML, but by itself it doesn't 
>seem important enough to justify revising XML. Nothing he said was 
>relevant to the question of whether the additional characters in 
>Unicode 3.1 are necessary for Japanese users. 

I have pointed out that at least six characters in Extension B are 
more important than their variants in Unicode 2.0.

U+23372
U+26402
U+23647
U+2A602
U+28A99
U+28EEB

In my previous mail, I have given a list of made-in-Japan kanjis which 
have been missing until Unicode 3.1.

Do other people need more information?  Frankly, I do not want to be told 
not to use Japanese by Elliotte.

Cheers,

Makoto