On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Per Jessen <per@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> 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>> What about U+FDD0? http://xkcd.com/380/
