Unicode encoding policy

[Doug Ewell]

William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> 
wrote:

> The lack of interest has always puzzled me, I had thought that with so
> many people on this mailing list who are interested in languages and
> communication, including many people who have a native language other
> than English, that there would be great interest in trying to produce
> a useful system.

I had a similar discussion some time ago with a member of this list 
regarding encoding of flags. It's an interesting idea which I think 
deserves some thought, but it's not character encoding; and therefore it 
doesn't belong in Unicode, or so I would have supposed.

I make no claim here about whether localizable sentences are interesting 
or deserving of thought. I only explain why I, interested in language 
and communication, don't believe Unicode is the proper venue for them.

> Regarding your claim about valid reasons.
>
> Could you possibly say what you consider to be the valid reasons
> please?

I'm not Erkki, but what I would have said, with my old-fashioned view of 
character encoding, is: because it's not character encoding.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org ­