On 7/16/2011 1:53 AM, Michael Everson wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2011, at 04:37, Asmus Freytag wrote:
>
>> It's not a matter of competing "views". There's a well-defined process for adding characters to the standard. It starts by documenting usage.
> Yes, Asmus, and when one wants to do that, one writes a proposal. We aren't writing a proposal here. We're *talking* about things.
I fully understand the difference between making a formal proposal (that
can be acted upon) and informally chatting about the possible needs for
some characters - and the chances that a successful proposal might be
written.
However, if the only hard information are assertions of personal
preference such as "Sometimes I might want to show a dotted box for NBSP
and sometimes a real NBSP", it is a bit much to then conclude "What I
see is a certain unreasonability reflecting a certain conservatism"
because there isn't an immediate, public enthusiasm for the idea.
A./
PS: My counter-assertion, that much of the technical literature uses the
abbreviations in preference to dashed boxes, has been pointedly ignored
by you. UAX#9, bidi, and UAX#14, linebreak, extensively discuss
invisible characters - neither of these documents needs symbol
characters, in fact, they would probably reduce clarity. This practice
goes back over 15 years, so it can be seen as "settled". (I further
assert that I expect examples could be found outside the standard as well).
PPS: If anybody provides evidence (suitably "documented" for the level
of discussion) of widespread use of symbolic depictions for certain
invisible characters, I'd be quite open to review it and to base my
future position on this new basis.
Received on Sat Jul 16 2011 - 15:11:41 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Jul 16 2011 - 15:11:49 CDT