> In my opinion really useless characters in Latin 1 are:
> CURRENCY SIGN, CENT SIGN, BROKEN BAR, NOT SIGN, MACRON,
> the vulgar fractions, and the non-combining diacritical marks. What was
> the original rationale to put those in Latin-1 anyway?
> Better kill those first before touching the plus-minus.
I looks like you can find that many of the supposedly useless characters
are in use. For example the NO SIGN is very nice to use as a not sign
(much better than ! in programming languages). For me the cent sign and
the yen sign are useless as well as vulgar factions, small superscript 1 2 3
and many more.
Better to keep Latin-1 as it is and use UCS when you need other characters
including the euro sign.
> On the other hand, who cares about yet another ISO 8859 part anyway when
> we are about to get 16-bit flying? With Latin-1 so widely implemented in
> both the Microsoft and Unix world, it is very unlikely that Latin-0 will
> become any faster implemented than Unicode subsets like MES, EES, Microsoft's
> WGL4, etc. I feel somewhat uncomfortable with seeing another almost Latin-1
> standard that will just make the final migration to Unicode slightly more
> difficult. Latin-0 will probably do more harm than good, in the best case
> it will be completely ignored.
> Just my 2±0.1¢
I agree, introducing a new Latin-?? (0 is an unsuitable number) might do
more harm than good. Having ISO 8859-1, UCS-2 (Unicode) and UCS (ISO 10646)
is a good combination with the first 256, first 65xxx and all characters of
UCS. To introduce a small variation of Latin-1 will not make things better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:35 EDT