• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
• To: elharo@m...
• Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:08:44 -0500

Elliotte Harold wrote:
> If we were to issue a new version of XML now, then Unicode 5.0 would 
> suffice for all our lifetimes and likely way beyond. In fact, Unicode 
> 3.0 pretty much took care of the last cases anyone is ever remotely 
> likely to need.

Is that true? Khmer and Mongolian are very much living languages, the 
Wikipedia article on Amharic suggests that it uses Ethiopic characters, 
new material in Cherokee has been showing up on the Web in Unicode, and 
Canadian Syllabics seem to be used for a wide variety of Cree languages.

When I look at the *huge* impact that Unicode has had for making ancient 
Greek easier to manipulate and exchange, I'd hate to deny that same 
privilege to speakers of these languages. You may feel that math 
characters are more important than characters in these languages, but 
native speakers and scholars who work with these languages may disagree.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>