[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Murata Makoto <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:58:34 -0500
He isn't saying that. He is asking for proof before
expenditure. That is rational business thinking.
Given that, Blueberry probably will pass.
How did XML get this far without support for what
you seem to say is fundamental Japanese? Not to
point fingers but to begin to look at the problems
of XML versions and just how big one should be, we
should understand if there was a flaw in the way
the requirements were created.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Murata Makoto [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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
>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.