> > Typesetting rules are derived from language, and language information is
> > present in native encoding + metatadata, but lost in Unicode.
>
> Surprise! Use Unicode+metadata and keep the information. Or use native
> encoding without metadata and lose it, too. So what's new?
Unicode is supposed to _replace_ metadata and be still complete. This is a
lie. Native encodings require metadata to be used together, and that
doesn't make them any inferior to Unicode.
> > Software doesn't exist because it's impossible to write anything based on
> > Unicode without losing quality below the level, already provided by
>
> You misspelt "gaining quality".
Please learn to read in plain English. Quality is lost, and I know it. How
you can know that or the opposite with your native language in iso8859-1,
that Unicode is designed to be absolutely compatible with, I have
absolutely no idea.
> > It simplifies issues for GUI-writers and creates a nightmare for everyone
> > else. Of course, Microsoft doesn't care about anything but GUI, but I do.
>
> Of course, _nobody_ has presented the slightest shred of evidence that it
> creates nightmares for anybody,
...If that "anybody" speaks English and German.
> and there is some evidence that it
> actually eliminates such nightmares (such as supporting two dozen
> different, incompatible character sets, maybe with an abomination like ISO
> 2022 as "solution", and not covering half as much territory).
Clay tablets support more. Let's switch to clay tablets.
>
> Plus, there's no reason why GUI writers should profit more than anybody
> else.
You really don't know the difference between buttons-drawing and text
processing in databases?
-- Alex