juuitchan asked:
> Should there not be a "UniGlyph" encoding...?
The answer is no, there should not be. That is the business
of the font designers and vendors, and not the business
of the Unicode Consortium, which standardizes *characters*.
And even if somebody else wanted to take up the task of
a "universal glyph" encoding (it has failed before), it
is unlikely that the effort would succeed.
It is a little bit like trying to create a catalog of all
the lifeforms on Earth. Simple taxonomic principles will
get you started o.k. (gorilla, orangutan, chimpanzee, ...
hippopotamus, ... Indigo bunting ... ) but then you find
out you can't really tell the hybrid willows apart, and
what about all the commerical varieties of maize, and how
do we tell a million beetles apart, and what about all
the bacteria we don't even know about, and do viruses
count? How about phages? How about self-replicating infective
proteins? What looks easy for the obvious cases quickly turns
near impossible.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 05 2002 - 18:16:01 EST