At 02:16 PM 02/10/2000 -0800, Doug Ewell wrote:
>BTW, I probably would have replaced U+00AC NOT SIGN and U+00AF MACRON
>instead of U+00BC and U+00BD. Can someone provide a counterexample
>showing that U+00AC and U+00AF are indeed in common use?
I would have removed the useless junk in the C1 range and put useful glyphs
there. What ACTUAL purpose is served by wasting 32 codepoints to duplicate
the C0 (x00-x1F) codes? I can see no reason why a character code needs to
function as if the high bit is not there. If I strip the high bit off a
character ALL the characters in the xA0-xFF range will display wrong so why
preserve the C1 codes just so it FORMATS "correctly"? It is junk in any
case so just display the formatting incorrectly.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT