From: Mark Davis (mark.edward.davis@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 13:37:12 CST
Every time anyone has any kind of organization of anything, it could be
considered "prejudical" to someone somewhere. And yet for a character picker
there are so very many Unicode characters that you have to have some kind of
organization or the characters you want are difficult to find within a
morass of others.
We considered UCA ordering, the ordering in the charts on
http://www.unicode.org/charts/collation/
There are a few problems with that, as you will see if you take a look.
- Especially in the case of symbols or punctuation, it is hard to find
things
- The interleaving of compatibility characters also makes it difficult
(take Arabic, for example).
- The ordering of scripts is arbitrary.
- Using UCA order significantly increases the bandwidth requirements.
(And carbon footprint ;-)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/powering-google-search.html)
Mark
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:42, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2009, at 18:00, David Starner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A search for "archaic|obsolete" on names and descriptions in UniView[1]
>>> came up with the following list:
>>>
>>> 019E: ƞ LATIN SMALL LETTER N WITH LONG RIGHT LEG
>>>
>>
>> It's still in modern use in Lakota.
>>
>
> This is why I wish Mark would not try to do this kind of algorithmic
> organization. It's prejudicial.
>
> It's also disappointing to have suggested a genuinely useful input palette
> (in UCD order) and have that dismissed. :-(
>
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2009 - 13:38:57 CST