I think it's reasonable to find that morally objectionable: English is the only language* that can be fully represented in ASCII, so pretending that ASCII is all you need excludes a large part of the world.

* yes, by and large. Many languages make do, but even the European languages that use the same script as English cannot be fully represented:

- Pretty much all mainland European languages use accents (simple example, in Spanish el and él are different words)

- French misses ç

- German/Swiss/Austrian misses ß

- Spanish misses ñ

- Dutch misses ij

It's naïve of you to maintain the façade that English can be fully represented in ASCII. We've just had longer than other languages to adapt to that particular encoding technology, and the good luck to have a code set built to represent our language become the lingua franca of computer technology.

A single example is worth more than a thousand slights.

Not even Britain and Ireland can manage with ASCII: they need £ and €.

I agree with you, and disagree strongly with dahfizz, who is essentially telling people their name and language are unacceptable.

Cyrillic-writing countries miss all of their alphabets and so does Greek.

Avoiding unicode, or anything but 7-bit ASCII is like using chiseling text into a stone instead of pen and paper because the pen might break. Fix the pen! Or replace it with a computer (and we're back full circle)!

It is not morally objectionable avoiding, it's just stupid.