Mark Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The best way I find to think of UCS-2 at this point is *not*
> (𝑛𝑜𝑡) another encoding, but rather simply a
> shorthand for a particular supported subset of UTF-16. In that way, it
> is like other subsets: for example, I can talk about the Cyrillic-
> block repertoire in UTF-16.
I thought this usage was a bad idea for at least two reasons:
1) We are always told not to use code points that haven't been formally
assigned (that's why I couldn't get anyone to give me a "sneak
preview" of characters coming in 3.0.1). I had no idea what was in
the U+1D4xx region, so I had to buzz over to Michael Everson's
"Roadmap" pages to find out.
2) What I found out was that they are "Mathematical Alphanumeric
Symbols," presumably italicized versions of the ASCII letters "NOT",
and I thought the use of these things as stylized ASCII text (as
opposed to math symbols) was going to be *highly* discouraged --
that's why we won't be seeing bold, italic, bold-italic, underlined,
etc. copies of the entire Latin, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic, Hebrew,
Han, etc. scripts.
I'm probably taking this a bit too seriously, but I remember a big,
heated debate about encoding these characters in which some high Unicode
guru assured us they were not intended for the use to which Mark just
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT