On Wednesday, October 20, 1999 8:22:47 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> I agree that SYMBOL FOR TAFKAP doesn't need to be in Unicode (although I
> enjoyed Marco's canonical decomposition), especially since he claims it
> has no pronunciation. But Ashley makes a good point, particularly in
> light of the Chinese groups that claim Unicode is "incomplete" because
> it doesn't have code points for logographic characters that appear only
> in less-common personal names.
However, in that case, there are the ideographic description characters
available to at least describe the unencoded name ideographs, and there is a
commitment on Unicode's part to encode them eventually (in theory). TAFKAP
(isn't he actually TAFKATAFKAP these days, anyway?) is in a different boat
altogether. To say the least.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:54 EDT