Am 09.02.15 um 15:57 schrieb Alfred Zett:
> That's actually interesting. Good to know, thanks.
>> I think everyone her knows what you are saying, and that the notion of
>> plain text is a bit fuzzy. But if you cannot argue that your character
>> has a meaning in plaint text, for some value of “plain text”, then you
>> can not hope for an encoding in Unicode.
>>
> OK, in this case I agree it makes little sense to hope for such characters.
That Unicode encodes "plain text" is indeed in its fundamentals (see
2.2, Unicode Design Principles).
Also, the Criteria for Encoding Symbols speak against your characters,
on the grounds of Jean-François objections:
http://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html
"The fact that a symbol merely "seems to be useful or potentially
useful" is precisely not a reason to code it. Demonstrated usage, or
demonstrated demand, on the other hand, does constitute a good reason to
encode the symbol."
So if you can't demonstrate usage, you should at least demonstrate
demand (rather than just claiming that there might be demand).
The canonical example for adding symbols with no demonstrated usage
are apparently the currency symbols, where it is easy to demonstrate
demand (by referring to the legislation that brings the currency to
life). Welcome the NEW DRACHMA SIGN :-)
Regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Unicode mailing list
Unicode_at_unicode.org
http://unicode.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode
Received on Mon Feb 09 2015 - 11:12:48 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 09 2015 - 11:12:48 CST