Ar 14:24 -0700 1998-10-02, scríobh Frank da Cruz:
>> I for my part do NOT!!!! want to see these terminal graphic things in the
>> BMP. They belong in Plane 1.
>>
>Perhaps, but as the lawyers say, the door was opened by the characters
>already included in blocks at U+2400, U+2500, U+2600, and U+2700.
I will not support their inclusion in the BMP unless there is a really good
reason. (I'd still make TTFs if necessary though, because I am a loon.) The
list of characters I saw was rather long.
>In any
>case, the intention here is to help Unicode become somewhat more
>"technology-neutral".
The UCS is going to be used for centuries. Do we really think VT100
emulation will be needed via BMP support?
>Terminal emulation is a fact of life, and important
>to a significant number of serious and productive computer users; why should
>its special glyphs be excluded from the same status enjoyed by dingbats and
>astrological signs?
Because the dingbats are used in typography, and astrological signs have a
definite semantic.
>Seriously, I think terminal emulation is far more
>mainstream than many Unicoders seem to think, and I hope it is a worthy goal
>to welcome this consituency into the fold, thus allowing them to continue
>their work in their accustomed manner, rather than according to the dictates
>of haute couture, with the added bonus of uniform access to the world's
>writing systems.
I don't see the argument for BMP here.
-- Michael Everson, Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.indigo.ie/egt 15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland Guthán: +353 1 478-2597 ** Facsa: +353 1 478-2597 (by arrangement) 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Co. Átha Cliath; Éire
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:42 EDT