> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Overington [mailto:WOverington@ngo.globalnet.co.uk]
> It would seem that it would be entirely within the letter and
> the spirit of
> that definition to use code points in regular Unicode to
> denote all manner
> of items for human and computer communication.
Given the frequency that these types of issues come up, I wonder if it
would be useful to list a few examples in the FAQ of what would -not- be
considered for inclusion in future releases of the standard?
For example, I'm guessing that my idea for encoding furniture icons and
room positioning indicators so that I could create floor layouts using a
text editor, would probably not be accepted. (No doubt because corporate
giants are trying to prevent the incredible financial success I would
realize if they allowed it.)
Perhaps if there were a few (more?) places on the site which explained
what Unicode is NOT, it would be easier for people to realize they
should build an app to accomplish their goal instead. Examples of
innappropriate submissions and explanations of why might help reduce the
problem.
(Apologies if such a thing does exist on the site... my poking around in
the FAQ and the "Submitting Proposals" page didn't find it.)
Suzanne Topping
BizWonk Inc.
stopping@bizwonk.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 12:18:58 EDT