On 5/29/2013 1:39 AM, Andreas Stötzner wrote:
>
> Am 29.05.2013 um 01:06 schrieb David Starner:
>
>> And what you'll run into is the fact that people don't agree that that
>> belongs in Unicode.
>
>
What Andreas was suggesting is rigorous study. I think that is a
commendable suggestion.
The more interesting question is what aspects should such a study
encompass, what are to be its starting points and what kind of
conclusions should be possible after it is completed?
With better facts in hand it will be much easier to double-check whether
currently-held assumptions about their relevance for encoding hold up or
need revisiting. Without facts, this kind of discussion just deals in
pre-conceived notions, and therefore adds little value.
A./
Received on Wed May 29 2013 - 10:01:21 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed May 29 2013 - 10:01:31 CDT