Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mtxinu!jaap
From: jaap@mtxinu.COM (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Polyglot List Issue
Keywords: character sets
Message-ID: <1991Jan28.220331.19682@mtxinu.COM>
Date: 28 Jan 91 22:03:31 GMT
References: <6600@alpha.cam.nist.gov> <6273@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <4947@srava.sra.co.jp>
Reply-To: jaap@mtxinu.UUCP (Jaap Akkerhuis)
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 21

In article <4947@srava.sra.co.jp> erik@srava.sra.co.jp (Erik M. van der Poel) writes:
 > Bill Tuthill writes:
 > > I believe that C/J/K unification is the right thing to do.  Consider
 > > what the world would be like if English-speaking people insisted on
 > > having their own A-Za-z alphabet, separate from Spanish A-Za-z.
 > 
 > I don't think that is a very good analogy. [stuff deleted]

Maybe it is actually a good analogy. A lot of people actually
consider the wiggly line above the n in spanish as a separate
character, so Bill would like to see that omitted in spanish? :-). It is very
difficult to make proper judgments about other people character sets when one
doesn't speak the language. For instance, all scandinavian characters
look a like for most outsiders. But actually, there are quite some
differences depending whether one speaks Danish, Swedish or
Norwegian.

The C/J/K unification is not the right thing to do when either C, J or
K have severe complaints about it.

	jaap