At 16:50 -0400 2008-07-24, Jimmy Wales wrote:
It is not
Unicode compliant and therefore violates the W3C
recommendations for Internet use.
Yes, I understand that. I am just trying to educate myself....
I'm curt sometimes when I get technical.
PROs - freely licensed, available today, and popular
Other things are also popular. Zawgyi's proponants are vocal.
CONs - not Unicode compliant and therefore doomed in
the long run
and we should help try to get rid of it
Absolutely. The Wikipedia is a great triumph for Unicode. We want to
support the Wikipedia; the Wikipedia should support Unicode. :-)
Okisan and his
friends have their own wiki. I am sure many of the
articles there have merit, and one day, when the my.wiki is ready,
they can be transcoded and migrated.
That solution does not make me happy, though. It makes no sense for
my.wikipedia.org to use a solution that most people can't read, and
have the community grow up elsewhere.
In the meantime they can do good work, and then we can convert the
whole thing and shut down their activity. I think Okisan suggested as
much.
I want Myanmar Wikipedia to grow at
my.wikipedia.org,
with the rest
of the global movement.
So do I. But it can't if it's not Unicode. Remember the government
authorities (such as they are) are also supporting Unicode now. We do
Burma no favours if we support anything but the same platform
Microsoft will eventually support.
That doesn't mean I like non-Unicode fonts. But it
does mean that I
want us to take whatever steps we can to migrate people to Unicode
as quickly as possible.
I've suggested getting my.wiki sorted out so that it is user friendly
in terms of getting people fonts and input methods (like the Kannada
and/or Telugu sites do). I think we should investigate compliant
fonts and their capabilities, but them in the CSS ranked in terms of
universality, clean up what needs cleaning up, and then work on the
conversion of the other material.
That's the best I can think of.
--
Michael Everson *
http://www.evertype.com