Sean Leonard <lists plus unicode at seantek dot com> wrote:
> Just putting a *bump* on this post.
Speaking as an individual with personal opinions, and without a vote in
UTC or WG2 (but having followed Unicode for 18 years), I don't see the
need for these additional symbols.
The C0 pictures in the U+2400 block were encoded in Unicode 1.0,
apparently for compatibility with existing standards that included these
pictures. No such standards seem to exist with C1 pictures.
It might be useful to provide specific examples of data analyzers that
employ the U+2400 characters to display C0 controls, which would be
likely to be updated in the future to support the newly added C1
pictures.
The stated need to be able to "discuss these characters in text" never
sways me, as I have said before. "[PLD]" works just fine.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell Received on Wed Aug 17 2011 - 15:53:28 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 17 2011 - 15:53:29 CDT