Re: Editor Priorities
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 23:26, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> Yes, I have proposed LANG setting sensibility (strictly speaking,
> LC_CTYPE locale sensibility).
Great minds think alike! (or maybe I've just mastered subconscious
thread reading :-)
> Right. However, I proposed CJK/bidi/Indic/combining besides LC_CTYPE
> sensibility because some of LC_CTYPE-sensible softwares don't support
I was thinking of a system where LC_CTYPE sensibility was considered
necessary but not sufficient for supporting some languages. For
example, if you consider editor foo (which supports LC_CTYPE and CJK,
but not bidi) and editor bar (which supports LC_CTYPE and bidi, but not
CJK), foo would get the +20 for English and Hebrew, and bar would get
the +20 for English and Japanese. Neither would get a +20 for languages
that require Indic support.
The reason I think this is better is because, technically, we don't care
about the particular subset of features an editor has; we just want the
editor to work when editing our language of choice. So, we set up
feature criteria for each language, and require that the editor meet the
criteria in order to get the bonus. The theory is that an editor that
supports two of the three features needed to support a particular
language is no more useful than an editor that supports none of those
But, then again, what does this mostly-monolingual stupid American know?
> I agree that UTF-8 is a great hope for *future*. However, CJK/bidi/Indic/
> combining is sereous need for *now*; softwares without these supports
> are just like what European people feel about non-8bit-clean softwares.
Oh, absolutely. OTOH, it's good to also think of the future. Now is a
good time to pressure editor makers to support Unicode (after they
support CJK, Indic, and bidi); otherwise, we'll be waiting on them
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org