Talk:Unicode strings: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→New task description: Liked the original.) |
|||
| Line 45: | 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) |
: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) |
|||