Unicode 7

[Rustom Mody]

On Friday, May 2, 2014 9:46:36 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 5/1/2014 7:33 PM, MRAB wrote:
> > On 2014-05-01 23:38, Terry Reedy wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2014 2:04 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >>>>> Since its Unicode-troll time, here's my contribution
> >>>>> http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicode-and-unix-assumption.html
> >> I will not comment on the Unix-assumption part, but I think you go wrong
> >> with this:  "Unicode is a Headache". The major headache is that unicode
> >> and its very few encodings are not universally used. The headache is all
> >> the non-unicode legacy encodings still being used. So you better title
> >> this section 'Non-Unicode is a Headache'.
> > [snip]
> > I think he's right when he says "Unicode is a headache", but only
> > because it's being used to handle languages which are, themselves, a
> > "headache": left-to-right versus right-to-left, sometimes on the same
> > line;

> Handling that without unicode is even worse.

> > diacritics, possibly several on a glyph; etc.

> Ditto.

Whats the best cure for headache?

Cut off the head

Whats the best cure for Unicode?

Ascii

Saying however that there is no headache in unicode does not make the headache
go away:

http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2014/1/5/unicode-in-2-and-3/

No I am not saying that the contents/style/tone are right.
However people are evidently suffering the transition.
Denying it is not a help.

And unicode consortium's ways are not exactly helpful to its own cause:
Imagine the C standard committee deciding that adding mandatory garbage collection
to C is a neat idea

Unicode consortium's going from old BMP to current (6.0) SMPs to who-knows-what
in the future is similar.