Talk:Unicode strings: Difference between revisions
→Bi-directional text
(→New task description: Liked the original.) |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
I strongly object to the modified task description and requirement here. My intention was to have people tell us about their languanges' Unicode capabilities in general, not having them solve puzzles. This is a fairly big topic, and people should be allowed to talk about various aspects of it, not just the specified 4 things. The original requirement was specifically made as suggestions, not homework assignment. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 15:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
:I'll second that the modifications are inconsiderate. They should be discussed, especially with the original task author. Immediate self-promotion from draft status is even worse. —[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Line 45:
:I preferred the chatty, inclusive, original. This is an English website, but I happen to agree with Ledrug and the original text. It seems that many native English speaking programmers need to be goaded into thinking about Unicode, and the tone of the original was more likely to involve the reader, IM'''H'''O. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:: Maybe we could link to a separate article on the pros and cons of Unicode, but I don't think that is really required. I think we should be brief and precise and stick to the task. We could create a separate article about Unicode, which covers the pros and cons. The original unnecessay verbage was not chatty, tt was one sided and did not state drawbacks. However, I don't think such an article is really necessary here. It does not affect the implementation of the task in any way. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
::: What "implementation"? You still don't get it. It's ''not'' a coding task. Let me say it again, it's '''not''' a coding task. It's a place where people can share their knowledge with others who are not familiar with a specific language. And I did say Unocode is complex, what more drawbacks do you need? Please stop trying to force everyone to agree with your narrow-minded point of view, and ''do'' discuss on talk page before you go around and change descriptions according to your feelings alone. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:::: I haven't stated my "points of view". What are you talking about? The task description is currently neutral as I can see, and the task is in draft. [[User:Markhobley|Markhobley]] 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:Given that Markhobley's edits didn't receive any support in past three days, I'm changing it back to original Q/A format. Also, "how well prepared" is ''the'' question for the task, it should not be in the suggestions list; encoding/normalization/canonization are in the same category, they should not be separated. Before you edit it again, please discuss here first. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 03:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
== Request to undraft ==
I think there are enough good discussions on the page that it can be promoted out of draft state now. --[[User:Ledrug|Ledrug]] 05:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
== Bi-directional text ==
I'm surprised to see no mention of right-to-left or bi-directional text in the task description. If this is really about 'internationalization' then being able to cope with these is as important as being able to render Unicode characters (if not more so); it's certainly more challenging! If this isn't thought to be an appropriate task to investigate those language capabilities perhaps there should be a new one. [[User:RichardRussell|RichardRussell]] 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not clear that that's a programming language issue. Consider, for example, a programming language which runs on a variety of hardware, and hosted by a variety of operating systems and using a variety of display mechanics. If the programming language is displaying text via a web browser, for example, then the issue of text rendering is a browser issue. If the programming language is displaying text via a java app (for portability) then this becomes a java issue. If the programming language is displaying text via gtk, then this becomes a gtk issue. And so on... --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
| |||