For the gods' sake reign in those hares.
Interchange protocols for architectural computer-aided design already
exists. Character encoding does not apply to anything like that,
because there aren't any characters. Object code has nothing to do
with character encoding. Your caveat, that you are saying that
>any decision as to what may be encoded and what shall and what shall
>not be encoded should be made by the Unicode Technical Committee on
>the basis of the scientific situation at the time that an encoding
>proposal is formally considered. I feel that it would be a major
>error for the Unicode Consortium to publish a FAQ document which
>prejudices the fair consideration of characters based upon new
>technologies which may arise in the future.
is completely unnececessary. We know quite well what we are doing. We
are hoping that with diligent study you will figure it out and get on
board. But as Ken has said there is no scientific theory left to
puzzle out. There may be aguments as to what specific symbols we wish
to add (some people hate them, some people like them) and there the
question is one of usage and the semantics of the symbols in general.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 09:15:15 EDT