An assessment of the Unicode standard

[Matthew Barnett]

Kurt Mueller wrote:
> Am 01.09.2009 um 09:39 schrieb Terry Reedy:
> 
>>> But this same problem also extends into monies, nation states, units
>>> of measure, etc.
> 
>> There is, of course, an international system of measure. The US is the 
>> only major holdout. (I recall Burma, or somesuch, is another.) An 
>> interesting proposition would be for the US to adopt the metric system 
>> in exchange for the rest of the world adopting simplified basic 
>> English as a common language.
> 
> The SI-system is nearly universally employed.
> Three principal exceptions are Burma (Myanmar), Liberia, and the United 
> States.
> The United Kingdom has officially adopted the International System of Units
> but not with the intention of replacing customary measures entirely.
> 
The intention in the UK was to switch to SI over a period of 10 years,
starting in 1971, so from then only SI was taught in schools.

Earlier this year the EU decided that it wouldn't force the UK to
abandon the few remaining uses of the Imperial system; SI is preferred,
but Imperial is permitted. The roads are still Imperial, and milk
delivered to the door can still use the existing pint bottles, but milk
sold in shops is in SI.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> When I was a student, they told us, that in a couple of years there will be
> the SI-system only, because most countries accepted it in their laws.
> So we should adopt it.
> That was in the early 70ties.
> Only this year we have to deliver results of technical processes to british
> and US companies. They still want them in their "crazy outdated" units.
> 
> 
> The other thing would be the US to adopt a "simplified basic English".
> I would not be astonished, that british people would state,
> that they already do :-)
>