RE: PETSCII mapping?

From: Peter Constable via Unicode <>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:18:48 +0000

From: Unicode [] On Behalf Of Rebecca T
Sent: Wednesday, April 5, 2017 2:26 PM

> 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…

Your assertions are based on assumptions that simply aren’t valid. Unicode regularly encodes characters for things that are not in widespread use, and that fit the intended scope of the Standard. If someone can demonstrate that there are users who _would_ interchange texts that currently cannot be represented in Unicode for lack of appropriate characters, then that certainly can be considered. But the fact that some text element was represented in some legacy system does not alone comprise an adequate basis for encoding.

And as Asmus said elsewhere in this thread,
> Nothing gets decided by the UTC unless there's a proposal on the table.

Also, as Elias said,
> Wouldn't it make sense to get in touch with active Commodore 64 communities
> to find out how people deal with this today?

This is key: if there isn’t an on-going interest among some user community for interchanging the putative characters in Unicode, then that would weaken a case for encoding.

> we must weigh a character’s merits and usability on its own. (does
> it fill a gap in communication? Will it be used?)

That is already and has always been a basis on which characters get encoded in Unicode.

Received on Mon Apr 10 2017 - 19:19:54 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Apr 10 2017 - 19:19:54 CDT