kenwhistler at att.net
Fri Jul 3 23:38:16 CDT 2015
On 7/3/2015 9:14 PM, Leo Broukhis wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
>> Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote:
>>> What I don't like about PRI #399 is its proposing to use default-
>>> ignorable characters. On a non-vexillology-aware platform, I'd like
>>> to see something informative, albeit not resembling a flag, but
>>> indicative of the intention to display a flag, like RIS can be, as
>>> opposed to nondescript white flags.
> But then a reader will have to look at the raw Unicode bytestream to
> find out *which* specific flag was intended.
> How convenient is that?
Ah, but on a "non-vexillology-aware platform", if it is just ignoring
all this vexatious trouble of mapping the tag sequences to identifiable
flag pictographs, you're just as likely that the fonts/renderers
involved won't do anything comprehensible with any new
non-default-ignorable metacharacter additions, either -- particularly as
would be Unicode 10.0+ additions to the standard. So the most
likely display would end up looking more like: ⚐ □ □ □ □
How convenient is that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode