From: Chris Dunaway on
On Mar 28, 4:33 am, "Mihai N." <nmihai_year_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Because that paragraph revealed a lack of knowledge so
> > big that I considered it a sure waste of time to read any
> > further.
>
> Actually, even if the article is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings,
> it has a big merit: it is entertaining enough to be popular. And the message
> at the end of the story is clear: programmers today must know about Unicode
> and use it, the time for legacy code pages is gone.
>

Can you please enumerate the mistakes in that article, or point to a
link that clears them up? He does have a disclaimer about the
elementary nature of the article:

"Before I get started, I should warn you that if you are one of those
rare people who knows about internationalization, you are going to
find my entire discussion a little bit oversimplified."

But I am interested in know what parts of it are mistaken/inaccurate.

Thanks,

Chris
From: Arne Vajhøj on
On 29-03-2010 09:31, Chris Dunaway wrote:
> On Mar 28, 4:33 am, "Mihai N."<nmihai_year_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Because that paragraph revealed a lack of knowledge so
>>> big that I considered it a sure waste of time to read any
>>> further.
>>
>> Actually, even if the article is full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings,
>> it has a big merit: it is entertaining enough to be popular. And the message
>> at the end of the story is clear: programmers today must know about Unicode
>> and use it, the time for legacy code pages is gone.
>>
>
> Can you please enumerate the mistakes in that article, or point to a
> link that clears them up? He does have a disclaimer about the
> elementary nature of the article:
>
> "Before I get started, I should warn you that if you are one of those
> rare people who knows about internationalization, you are going to
> find my entire discussion a little bit oversimplified."
>
> But I am interested in know what parts of it are mistaken/inaccurate.

There were one example earlier in the thread.

Arne