A few questiosn about encoding

[Rick Johnson]

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:26:17 AM UTC-5, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> The *implementation* is easy to explain. It's the names of
> the encodings which I get tangled up in.

Well, ignoring the fact that you're last explanation is
still buggy, you have not actually described an
"implementation", no, you've merely generalized ( and quite
vaguely i might add) the technical specification of a few
encoding. Let's ask Wikipedia to enlighten us on the
subject of "implementation":

    ############################################################
    #                  Define: Implementation                  #
    ############################################################
    # In computer science, an implementation is a realization  #
    # of a technical specification or algorithm as a program,  #
    # software component, or other computer system through     #
    # computer programming and deployment. Many                #
    # implementations may exist for a given specification or   #
    # standard. For example, web browsers contain              #
    # implementations of World Wide Web Consortium-recommended #
    # specifications, and software development tools contain   #
    # implementations of programming languages.                #
    ############################################################

Do you think someone could reliably implement the alphabet of a new
language in Unicode by using the general outline you
provided? -- again, ignoring your continual fumbling when
explaining that simple generalization :-)

Your generalization is analogous to explaining web browsers
as: "software that allows a user to view web pages in the
range www.*" Do you think someone could implement a web
browser from such limited specification? (if that was all
they knew?).

============================================================
 Since we're on the subject of Unicode:
============================================================
One the most humorous aspects of Unicode is that it has
encodings for Braille characters. Hmm, this presents a
conundrum of sorts. RIDDLE ME THIS?!

    Since Braille is a type of "reading" for the blind by
    utilizing the sense of touch (therefore DEMANDING 3
    dimensions) and glyphs derived from Unicode are
    restrictively two dimensional, because let's face it people,
    Unicode exists in your computer, and computer screens are
    two dimensional... but you already knew that -- i think?,
    then what is the purpose of a Unicode Braille character set?

That should haunt your nightmares for some time.