Re: yet another XEmacs fork;-)

Julian Bradfield writes: I see no reason why it shouldn't be both. However, I believe that Unicode is sufficient to distinguish different characters, and that language information should be included in the markup, not in the character code. On the other hand, I think that language structure should be reflected in the document structure, not implied by the characters contained. There is a minority of CJK speakers who disagree. AFAIK the most vocal ones are mostly Japanese. As a non-speaker, though, you should not trust your eyes. The number and order in which the strokes are written is very important, more so than the orientation in many cases. For example, are you aware that in Han characters, rectangles are usually triangles (it only takes three strokes to write the character for "mouth", which is a square)? However, the not-so-extremists among those folks basically go to the extent of saying that "A" in Lucida Typewriter is not the same as "A" in Fraktur! (Extremists even take exception to systematic differences similar to the use of serifs in Latin glyphs.) There really is no consensus as to where to draw the line among them, either, whereas the Unicode advocates have a set of rules that are easy to apply in many thousands of common cases and ambiguous in very few cases, even for rare glyphs (except for the case of "lost" glyphs whose meaning is uncertain). Even the fanatics agree that the unified characters are closely related, though the Japanese ones insist that "Japanese" characters have an ineffable "Japanese spirit" not present in Chinese versions .... They invariably treat those strings as different strings, just as Mule does (except as modified by latin-unity and similar GNU features). Oops! That was your example not Glynn's, I see. Mea maxima culpa! _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta