Overloading Unicode

From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 17:12:54 CDT

  • Next message: Mark E. Shoulson: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"

    I've noticed a common thread this week.

    Sinnathurai Srivas wrote:

    > Allow linear display [of Tamil], when a font is designed for that
    > purpose. (The other is complex rendered contemporary display). Linear
    > display can be used for some time to come, while the Government passes
    > a decree for a "controlled stability path for change".

    William Overington wrote:

    > [I]f the idea of the portable interpretable object code gathers
    > support, then maybe the defined scope of the standards will become
    > extended.

    and Luke-Jr wrote first:

    > As far as I know, I am currently the only human alive with the
    > intention of adopting the Tonal system.

    and later:

    > The whole point is to get the tonal/hexadecimal number system adopted
    > for ordinary everyday use.

    The common thread is for some folks to regard the Unicode Standard as a
    vehicle for advancing their own personal agenda -- promoting script
    reform, extending the understood meaning of "plain text," or changing
    the way people count. The Tamil posts at least have to do with
    character rendering, but the goal is still to have Unicode "bless" a
    script reform proposal that appears not to have gained widespread
    acceptance, and thereby lend credibility to it.

    The Unicode Standard is a character encoding standard. This covers a
    lot more than simply "what character gets mapped to what integer," but
    it does *not* cover social activism, and it does *not* cover blazing
    trails for the future. That should probably be an FAQ too.

    Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
    RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2010 - 17:16:03 CDT