Re: ASN.1 and XML
Hi Rick, Iwaku Rick Jelliffe: > In some countries, the technological elite uses English and is happy with > the status quo. In other countries, even the technological elite is not > comfortable in English. > > I would hope that Japan and other ISO members would start to adopt a policy > of diverting all International Standards to Technical Report status if they > are gratuitously tied to ASCII rather than to Unicode. It is shameful. I have extremely mixed feelings on this subject. As a programmer here in Japan, I understand first hand how hard it is to get engineers who think they are comfortable programming in "English" to realize the advantage of having meaningful identifiers in their source. XML is helping, but a lot of our xml documents specify shift-jis as the encoding. They want a good reason to do the conversion, and UNICODE tends to be seen as just being another, slightly better, more complete JIS. If the Japanese are going to have to convert, I think they instinctively want to go a step further. I do. JIS was a hack. (And a very good hack!) Encoding by whole Kanji is roughly the equivalent of encoding English by root word rather than letter. Think what it means to specify in advance which root words are allowed: No more "warez", etc. ;-) If your name happens to have a non-standard spelling, you have to use the standard spelling on all computerized documents. UNICODE does not change this, although, with the additions this year, it brings <estimate>99+%</estimate> of the known unusual writings into the standard. (They may have essentially all the unusual writings that are _officially_ known.) (And so that I am not misunderstood, they have done a lot of good work on UNICODE, and I appreciate that very much.) The point I am trying to push is that users of ideographic characters want to be able to create characters on the fly, and to be able to transmit such characters reliably. (By reliably, I mostly mean that the intended character should display legibly on the recipient's machine; I am not talking about calligraphy.) We now have processor speeds, memory, and displays sufficient to allow encoding ideographs by radical component. I suspect that there is also need to analyze text based on radicals, but that can be done (and will ultimately have to be done) in part with external tables mapping ideographs to and from lists of their components. (UNICODE may have most of the pieces necessary to do all of this. I am trying to break out some time to play with real code, but there's too much about creating and registering glyphs that I don't know yet.) Anyway, national standards remaining tied uniquely to the old standards is not good, but I personally perceive no end to the need for supporting multiple encodings. Joel Rees ============================XML as Best Solution=== Joel Rees $B%j!<%9!!%8%g%(%k(B Media Fusion Co.,Ltd. $B3t<02q
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format