... 10646 defines what a text element is: essentially,
a (base) character followed by an infinite sequence of combining marks.
The above model has a fatal defect in interactive environment.
While unpleasant, I don't see that this is a fatal flaw from a pragmatic
viewpoint.
That a model of something has a fatal defect can be covered by
pragmatism, of course.
As you mentioned, the fatality of the model disappears if we don't use
combining characters, because, then, we are not using the model.
But it seems to me that you are missing the point of the thread.
Andrew's opinion is:
We should use the model.
And, my opinion is:
We shouldn't use the model.
Then, your opinion is, I think:
The model is unpleasant and we can avoid to depend on the model.
So, what is your point?
If you see Unicode as something that is supposed to be perfect
and last for all time, it's nasty. If you see Unicode as a reasonable
compromise that will make the next decade rather less painful than it
would otherwise be, but will need revision or replacement eventually,
it's regrettable but not disastrous.
Strange. You called a very intended feature of Unicode a bug, in the
previous mail. How can you say Unicode reasonable now? It's buggy.
Anyway, though I don't think Unicode reasonable, I am not saying IANA
should not register Unicode based charset.
I just say that it should be registered, for example, as
charset=iso-10646-sanskrit-japanese-utf2
or
charset=iso-10646-hindi-chinese-utf2
What's wrong with that?
Masataka Ohta