RE: participating communities (was XML Blueberry)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

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.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Murata Makoto [mailto: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.