At 10:06 -0700 2002-01-18, Robert Palais wrote:
>Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is
>as political as action. "We are holders of the standards
>for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols
>until they are widely used..." not necessarily the intent, but possibly
>the impact - that evolution of symbolic communication will be hampered?
Unicode is for the exchange of data. If there is only one user of the
di-pi, then there is no need to exchange the data. I mean, I'd be
impressed if there were 50 documents that used the di-pi. So far
we've heard of three. Is it unreasonable that we expect to know
whether a character is actually useful before we encode it?
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 12:32:24 EST