From: Rafael L. <rla...@us...> - 2004-05-19 06:48:27
|
* Andrew Roach <aro...@ya...> [2004-05-19 14:06]: > I gotta say, that is very cool trick (and works with IE too); but I think > that using the "#g" syntax is easier on the brain. I know which I would be > using ;-). Agreed. Unless you have an Unicode-supported editor (my Emacs-mule does it, for instance), it is impractical to enter Unicode characters. Related to that, nothing prevents us of implementing the #(NNNN) escape sequence proposed in this thread. We can even implement this right now, without the Unicode support. However, I would prefer that the NNNN number refers to the Unicode encoding, and not to the position of the glyphs in the Harshey font. This brings us to your point: > Can you think of any other issues that might get in the way of adding > unicode support ? I think the biggest hurdle would be getting a > Hershey/unicode translation table. Yes, this would be the only single hurdle in the implementation, but it is absolutely necessary. -- Rafael |