Aaargh ! Out of curiosity, I looked what release of
Unicode was installed on my system, and it looks like
it is Release 2.1. That's probably why I can't get
Tibetan characters. How is it possible to live without
Tibetan characters ?
What's more, Word's Help tries to discourage me to
use, even an old release of Unicode, because it
requires huge space on disk. Says, only if you can't
do it another way. I shall never see the end of my
torments. Don't know whether I can download it for
free, but anyway it will probably take hours, as I use
a very low speed connection (3,5 bytes/s, as it
Tech, I hate you. You were supposed to make user's
--- John Cowan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To stomp this meme before it gets out of control:
> Since the publication of Unicode 2.0 in 1996, there
> have been NO
> changes in the assignment of characters to
> particular codes or in
> the identity of characters, and the Unicode and ISO
> committees are
> firmly committed to the policy that there will be no
> changes in
> future for any reasons whatsoever.
> On occasion, the descriptions or properties of
> characters have
> been changed to take advantage of better knowledge
> about obscure scripts) or to correct small errors
> (the ESTIMATED
> SYMBOL is not a letter even though it looks just
> like an "e").
> But in no case has this extended to removing a
> character, or
> changing the code assigned to a character.
> Unicode 2.0 texts are perfectly interpretable under
> the current
> (4.0.1) standard. Indeed, the great bulk of Unicode
> 1.1 texts
> are also; the changes made at that time affected
> only Korean,
> at a time when little if any Korean text was
> available in Unicode,
> and Japanese katakana with circles drawn around
> them. Hardly
> a huge problem.
"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs