tedd wrote: > At 5:29 PM +0200 8/30/08, Per Jessen wrote: >>Well, I guess - sort of. Just because something is Unicode does not >>make it global, in my opinion. >>In fact, I would argue that most of Unicode is _not_ global at all. >>Think about the alphabets such as: Arabic, Armenian, Bengali, >>Bopomofo, Cyrillic, Devanagari, Georgian, Greek and Coptic, Gujarati, >>Gurmukhi, Hangul, Hebrew, Hiragana, Kannada, Katakana, Lao, Latin, >>Malayalam, Oriya, Tamil, Telugu, Thai, and Tibetan - and they were all >>in the first version of Unicode. (I'm quoting from wikipedia). > > Why does those languages appearing in Unicode NOT make Unicode > global? Maybe we have a difference in they way we perceive Global. > Uh, we're not talking about Unicode itself, but about whether individual symbols (that happen to also be represented in unicode) are global or not. AFAIk, every symbol that is currently represented in Unicode existed before Unicode came around, and Unicode didn't all of a sudden confer a global status onto them. A global symbol to me is something that is used/recognised/present in several different countries and cultures around the world. I think the Ying-Yang is easily a globally recognised symbol, whereas Rx isn't. Coca-Cola is global, Mezzo-Mix and Rivella aren't. /Per Jessen, Zürich -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
