Okay, how about the following example? It is a part of the sample
data named doc/demo in mule2 (multiligual extenstion to GNU Emacs by
Handa-san). If you want more, I can send the other examples.
(example deleted)
Looks like gibberish to me. Somehow I suspect that it also looks like
gibberish to most of the people who read this.
I am quite sure that iso-2022-int-1 can express things in all of these
different languages. But that's not the problem with defining a
worldwide character set. The real problem is getting people to accept
it and integrate into their operating systems, applications, etc.
It should be obvious to anyone here that we have nothing resembling a
consensus on a single character set to represent most of the world's
languages. Indeed, I count three separate proposals, each of which
has a strong proponent or two, and for each of which several others
will object strongly. All of these proposals have been around for
long enough to be evaluated, and none has emerged as a clear winner.
I'll also note that (unlike, say, the IPng efforts) there not been any
evidence of effort towards producing a compromise proposal that
satisfies a greater set of requirements than the others.
(This does not appear to be for lack of talent, technical feasibility,
or even expertise, but instead because of personalities. No amount of
technical argument will suffice to overcome these.)
If the (relatively) few of us on this mailing list can't agree on a
worldwide character set, how can we expect the much larger group of
vendors and implementors to come to any agreement?
At any rate, it certainly won't happen because of anything we say or
do in this group.
So, for the Nth time, to those of you who want to "push" for a single
character set in Internet e-mail:
You are wasting your time, and ours.
Your intentions may be noble, but this is the wrong audience.
If you want to continue with your work, take it elsewhere.
Keith