Re: PETSCII mapping?

From: Asmus Freytag (c) <>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:14:02 -0700

On 4/5/2017 2:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote:
> > If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based
> systems and
> > those using PETSCII
> There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our
> society
> functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling
> computer in history [1] because nobody cared to standardize its?

There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric.

If you believe there is a credible need, then it should be easy to
document that as part of a proposal.

Nothing gets decided by the UTC unless there's a proposal on the table.

> > A similar scenario might exist if C64 emulators run on Unicode-based
> systesm
> > were a widespread phenomenon
> They do! Even last month, there was a PETSCII directory-art contest. [2]
> A bit off-topic, but:
> As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and
> flimsier
> argument against inclusion — why isn’t there a larger community of PETSCII
> enthusaists? Partially because the only way to share PETSCII is
> through images!
> The consortium (passively or actively) prevents communication through
> exclusion
> and then uses the lack of communication as a justification against
> inclusion —
> it’s a poor, tautological argument, and it won’t serve the consortium
> long-term.
> Simply put, we need new criteria for inclusion — as the vast majority
> of the
> world’s systems (from written communication in text messages to the
> manuscripts
> of all new books) are already Unicode-based, we can no longer rely on a
> character’s existing presence outside of Unicode as a signal to warrent
> inclusion; we must weigh a character’s merits and usability on its
> own. (does
> it fill a gap in communication? Will it be used?)
> [1]:
> [2]:
Received on Wed Apr 05 2017 - 17:14:23 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Apr 05 2017 - 17:14:23 CDT