From: John Cowan (cowan@mercury.ccil.org)
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 05:43:08 CST
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> So, if I have understood this correctly (which is by no means certain),
> these tag characters were added to Unicode in the vague hope that some
> people might one day start using them, or on the off-chance that someone
> might one day need them.
Not.
They were added in order to ward off an abuse of UTF-8 by a certain
committee that insisted it needed lightweight language tagging in
a certain computer protocol. The tags were never a "script". Everyone
on the UTC sincerely hopes, I believe, that they never get used at all.
For 99.9% of all use cases, ordinary markup is the Right Thing for
language tagging.
> Alternatively, maybe I've misunderstood and there is, in fact, no such
> requirement that a script appear in published books before it may be
> added to Unicode ... in which case, of course, it cannot be used as an
> argument for the Consortium's rejection of Klingon.
"Books" is an equivoque. Publishing (i.e. distributing to the public)
in some medium of writing is certainly an important factor.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com
Charles li reis, nostre emperesdre magnes,
Set anz totz pleinz ad ested in Espagnes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST