<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Unicode -- making a difference</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2008/04/30/8440308.aspx</link><description>Regular reader Arun pointed out an interesting article to me: 
 
 Michael, Check out ( http://www.infoworld.com/archives/emailPrint.jsp?R=printThis&amp;amp;A=/article/08/04/28/10-most-important-technologies-you-never-think-about_1.html ) for the 10 most</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>re: Unicode -- making a difference</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2008/04/30/8440308.aspx#8443513</link><pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:30:10 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8443513</guid><dc:creator>Michael S. Kaplan</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I am not sure that we can really count your family as typical in this situation? :-)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8443513" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: Unicode -- making a difference</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2008/04/30/8440308.aspx#8442544</link><pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:24:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:8442544</guid><dc:creator>Andrew West</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Cool. I particularly liked the expression &amp;quot;Rosetta Stone of computing&amp;quot;, which I thought must have been borrowed from somewhere else, but googling it shows only this page and one other page that claims (implausibly) that &amp;quot;the Mac is literally the Rosetta Stone of computing!&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, some minor complaints. Measuring the complexity of Unicode by the number of pages in the printed book is not such a great idea, especially when &amp;quot;At nearly 1,500 pages and counting&amp;quot; must refer to the Unicode 4.0 book (1462 pages) and in fact the Unicode 5.1 book is only 1247 pages in length!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;And my perennial complaint about people's reluctance to use the term &amp;quot;script&amp;quot; in books and articles aimed at a general audience -- &amp;quot;written languages&amp;quot; really is not a good alternative for script, and in my experience children of three know the difference between a language and a script (at least they do in my family). In any case Unicode 5.1 supports 75 scripts, not a mere 30+ that Neil McAllister states. It would have been more impressive if he had mentioned that Unicode now encodes over 100,000 characters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=8442544" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>