Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

On 11/08/2012 09:00 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>> I stand by it: we don't encode what would be cool to have. We encode
>> what people *use*.
>>
>
> Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded
> based on expected usage.
>
...
> What these examples have in common is that they reflect a small number
> of characters with an "instant" user community that's well defined and
> understood (and appropriate to the type of character). The main reason
> for the restriction to "encode what people use" is that characters
> cannot be retracted if the hoped for enthusiasm for them doesn't
> materialize.
>
> The other reason is that the Unicode Standard is a standard - what it
> encodes needs to be worthy of standardization. There are exceptional
> instances where "leading" standardization can be justified - they are
> few and far between, but they exist. As exceptions prove the rule -
> the majority of characters will continue to be cases where
> standardization follows demonstrated use.
>
Well said; and I accept the correction to my position. It does happen,
but not very often and not without good reason.

~mark
Received on Thu Nov 08 2012 - 20:31:15 CST