on 11/7/01 2:59 PM, Asmus Freytag at asmusf@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In Unicode 3.2, we've re-researched the math symbol repertoire and
> discovered that we need to encode each version separately. While this
> provides an overall much more useful set of math symbols, it does pose the
> kinds of questions Eric raises.
Just to be clear, I understand the need for an additional character and I
have no problem with that. Furthermore, I believe this is just one instance
among many others, and I suspect this is inherent to a growing collection of
characters.
So if we agree that just knowing that a document contains Unicode characters
is not enough to fully understand what it means and what it does not mean,
what do we do? Is it worth building and deploying some infrastructure to
deal with this? Is the need for interoperability great enough that we want a
standard way? What do we (users) need to get from various groups?
For example, I could see an application that helps users upgrade documents
from Unicode 3.0 to Unicode 3.2, by pointing to occurrences of U+2264 and
offering to replace them by U+2a7d. If there is a large enough demand for
such a tool, then may be we should encourage the UTC to provide the
underlying data; after all, when U+2a7d was considered for addition, its
connection with U+2264 was certainly noted.
Eric.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Nov 08 2001 - 14:07:11 EST