beckiergb at gmail.com
Wed Apr 5 11:42:25 CDT 2017
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Unicode is not an archive of anything ever used on computers.
Why not? Isn't one of Unicode's goals to support the conversion of
documents using legacy character sets into Unicode? I do not understand
why, say, the entire IBM PC character set is eligible for encoding, but not
the entire Commodore 64 character set.
Were there word processors on the Commodore 64 that allowed the input of
PETSCII characters? Could documents written using that software demonstrate
a need to encode those characters? What about instruction manuals, magazine
articles, and program listings that used PETSCII characters in running
text? Surely there must be more than enough examples for a computer as
popular as the Commodore 64.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Unicode