Dear Rick,
The long and short of it (bad pun, admittedly) is that most of the
characters do not approximate the ones I mentioned. Non-spacing long and
short characters were exceptions.
I only want to add characters that are both useful to the humanities in
general and not present in the standard. I raise the matter as point for
discussion. I have had trouble interesting the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae
in this kind of issue, but they do have the resources to deal with. My
guess is that there will not prove enough interest-- which disappoints
me, since I will have to learn to love the private use area. SGML
entities will have to do in many cases, since these are defined in the
Text Encoding Initiative, I imagine.
-Ronald S. Wood.
Rick McGowan:
> A while ago today Ed Cherlin said...
>
> > "In the past, Unicode has been somewhat cramped, and the tendency has been
> > to unify characters where possible without infringing on other standards.
> > Now with UTF-16 we can afford to separate character sets for clearly
> > different uses."
>
> No, no, no, no, no, no. Please don't even start thinking this way. Don't
> encourage other people to think this way.
>
> Unification principles are primary. They are independent of how much space we
> have at our disposal. Just because we have space doe not mean we should rush
> to fill it with junk as fast as we can. The principles are still the
> principles.
>
> You should read the allocation paper that Becker and I did a long time ago,
> which has been adopted, at least in principle, by both UTC and WG2. It is a
> rational plan with some good rules of thumb about character encoding.
>
> Encoding a new character is the LAST RESORT.
>
> Rick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT