Re: Hexadecimal digits

From: Luke-Jr (
Date: Fri Jun 04 2010 - 18:40:59 CDT

  • Next message: CE Whitehead: "Re: Hexadecimal digits"

    On Friday 04 June 2010 05:40:48 pm Doug Ewell wrote:
    > "Luke-Jr" <luke at dashjr dot org> wrote:
    > >> Shouldn't this be an FAQ?
    > >
    > > If it's Frequent, shouldn't that imply there's enough people who want
    > > it to warrant inclusion in Unicode? ;)
    > It means there are enough people who are misinformed about whether a
    > universal character encoding should be a tool to advance individuals'
    > social reforms.

    Can't even begin using a new character if it doesn't exist. Are you saying all
    new symbols must be popularised on paper before they can be even considered
    for use in digital mediums? Under that rule in modern day, there will never be
    a new symbol, ever.

    Why not allow proposals of this nature a "draft" status, and require popular
    use before allowing it to become "standard" or "permanent"?

    Since posting to the list, I have become aware of CSUR (ConScript Unicode
    Registry) which sub-standardizes the Private Use Area. It seems to be, in
    practice, used for draft/pre-standard characters which are later forced to be
    remapped when given a standard range. Obviously the remapping is far from
    ideal, but if that is the road to take, perhaps mentioning it in the proposed
    FAQ would be a good start.

    On Friday 04 June 2010 05:42:48 pm Doug Ewell wrote:
    > SI and "kilo" and the decimal system have been around far, far longer than
    > so-called "classical computing."

    Sure, SI and "kilo" have, but "kilobyte" has always meant 1024 bytes.

    On Friday 04 June 2010 05:28:10 pm Michael Everson wrote:
    > Piffle. All writing systems are artefacts.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2010 - 18:44:06 CDT