[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Closing Blueberry
- From: Murata Makoto <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:10:16 +0900
>FYI, I still haven't converged. I am not yet convinced that the
>benefits outweigh the costs. I am trying to seek more input from the
>communities that actually need this, but it may take awhile. I am also
>trying to figure out ways to reduce the cost, but so far there doesn't
>seem to be a willingness on the part of the Blueberry proponents to
>give up any ground in exchange for reducing the harm to the existing
As for the Japanese language, I believe that I have demonstrated
reasons: changes of unification and made-in-Japan Kanji require
non-BMP name characters. If Unicode becomes popular and we
continue to use XML 1.0, disallowed CJK ideographics will become
Since this mailing list is in English, it is very difficult to collect
input from those people who do not speak English. I know that some
knowledgeable Japanese have tried to read this thread and have given
up. I suppose that the same thing is happening to other languages.
Thoose who really need non-ASCII characters are not even aware of this
ML or find it very difficult to participate in.
I really do not want to see Ethnocentric Markup Language.
>I also proposed as a more limited version of this that did not have
>streaming issues; specifically that only documents actually labeled
>with a Blueberry character encoding such as UTF-8 or UTF-16 be allowed
>to carry a Blueberry mark. This was denied on the very weak grounds
>that additional encodings might be defined in the future. OK. They
>might be. But UTF-8, UTF-16, and a few others are still fully adequate
>to write Blueberrry documents. There is no need for character
>encodings beyond what we have now. If someone invents one in the
>future, that won't change the fact that UTF-8, UTF-16, and a few
>others will still do the job.
GB 18030 of China already exists.