[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: Murata Makoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:46:34 +0900
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.
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.