From: Henrik Theiling (theiling@absint.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 11:00:11 CST
Hi!
Mark Davis writes:
> Good points. There are two purposes, really.
>
> 1. I have an UTC action to update UTR#39, which provides for sets of
> characters that people may want to exclude from identifiers. It has an
> 'archaic' category, and I need to update the contents.
NOOOO! OMG, why exclude!? I'm a programmer, I am looking forward to
real Unicode support in programming languages and I don't want to be
constrained by a programming language wrt. which characters are legal
in identifiers!
Scheme (R6RS) has a good definition of its Unicode morphology (well,
they could've excluded U+FFFD, maybe) -- nothing more (or less) is
needed!
In my opinion, the idea of archaic/obsolete characters is highly
counter-productive and irrelevant for Unicode. What possible purpose
would 'less relevant characters' serve other than diluting the very
principles of Unicode?
Who are you to judge 'corner newspapers'? Are Skolt Sami newspapers
'corner' because there are few people who speak that language?
**Henrik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 11:01:35 CST