From: John Cowan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 06:57:37 CST
Jill Ramonsky scripsit:
> I wonder why it was not felt a good idea at the time (the early 1990s)
> to have defined LS and PS, but with codepoints somewhere in the range
> U+00 to U+1F.
Pretty much because other ISO standards specify the meaning of that set,
and Unicode/ISO 10646 very much didn't want to go there. I say "meaning",
but there are actually multiple possible meanings, though most of them are
> I'm not surprised that NEL never caught on though.
Note that the presence of NEL in the C1 area (U+0080 to U+009F) reflects
an earlier attempt to do the same thing that generated LS. Some ISO
committee recognized that LF was being overloaded to mean "move to the
next line" and "go back to the beginning, then move to the next line"
and introduced the characters U+0084 (IND) and U+0085 (NEL) to
disambiguate, presumably in hopes that LF would eventually be abandoned
in favor of IND and NEL as appropriate.
No such luck, Doc. <chomp/><chomp/>
-- John Cowan email@example.com www.reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan I am he that buries his friends alive and drowns them and draws them alive again from the water. I came from the end of a bag, but no bag went over me. I am the friend of bears and the guest of eagles. I am Ringwinner and Luckwearer; and I am Barrel-rider. --Bilbo to Smaug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 18 2007 - 15:54:24 CST