<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 18:15, Donn Cave <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donn@avvanta.com">donn@avvanta.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">> Quoth Brandon Allbery <<a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com">allbery.b@gmail.com</a>>,<br>
</div>...<br>
<div class="im">> Seems obvious to me: on the one hand, there should be a plain-ASCII<br>
> version of any Unicode symbol; on the other, the ASCII version has<br>
> shortcomings the Unicode one doesn't (namely the existing conflict between<br>
> use as composition and use as module and now record qualifier). So, the<br>
> Unicode one requires support but avoids weird parse issues.<br>
<br>
</div>OK. To me, the first hand is all you need - if there should be a<br>
plain-ASCII version of any Unicode symbol anyway, then you can avoid<br>
some trouble by just recognizing that you don't need Unicode symbols<br>
(let alone with different parsing rules.)<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What? The weird parsing rules are part of the ASCII one; it's what the Unicode is trying to *avoid*. We're just about out of ASCII, weird parsing is going to be required at some point.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I also wish to note that I have never been a member of the "anything beyond plain ASCII is fundamental evil" set; if we're going to think that way, just go back to BAUDOT and punched cards.</div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br>brandon s allbery <a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a><br>wandering unix systems administrator (available) (412) 475-9364 vm/sms<br>
<br>
</div>