On 1/16/2013 5:35 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
>> Fair enough. It's not a problem to ask the question, "Is this a candidate for encoding?" It becomes a problem when the poster assumes, because thet blob appeared in such-and-so location, that it MUST be a candidate for encoding, and no level of argument about the character/glyph model, or the need to interchange the blob, or anything else, will change that person's mind.
> Was there any sign of such assumption in the original question sent by Elbrecht ? He just asks for help, nothing else. He does not request a new encoding. He just speaks about something he found for which there's no "easy" mapping to Unicode.
Where Phillipe is right, he is right.
Yes,there are a few very obstinate individuals, but they are well known.
However, it seems, that frequent interaction with them has given the
list an allergic sensitization. That is unfortunate. It should be
possible to come to the list, even if one is convinced the sign, symbol
or letter is "new" to Unicode. I would even claim that most people who
post here are discouraged by the negative reaction anyway, and never
file a submission - even if their case has merits. Heck, even the
obstinate ones don't always get around to filing a submission :)
The proper place for this list is to offer discussion, background and
advise - it's not the ruling body and final determination what is or is
not a valid character belongs to the proper committee like the UTC.
Something that occasionally gets forgotten.
Received on Thu Jan 17 2013 - 02:08:43 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 17 2013 - 02:08:45 CST