From: D. Starner (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 18:29:27 EST
> Might it not seem rather sensible of them to use the (SIL PUA) codes
> F20E and F20F, generated by their keyboards and displayed with their
In the computing world, there's always a trade-off between expressiveness
and flexibility. They might not find it so sensible if they have
to access their data anywhere else or have anyone else access their
In any case, the vast majority of people working with cuniform would use
a transliteration, likely even written on their paper files. To use real
cuniform is a "because-I-can" thing, which I am not personally insensible,
but doesn't get the highest priority bug fixes.
> You may not think what Dean
> and his colleagues were doing was very sensible, but it obviously made
> sense to them, so what was the point of banning it?
The point of banning it, if I understand it right, was that the old way
didn't work right when viewing PUA data under all circumstances, and
the only way was, as Dean put it, to uninstall fonts and rearrange
codepoints. To enable the functionality in text editors, they had an
unexpected side-effect of breaking PUA characters in file names. Which
way to go is obvious to me.
-- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 19:23:53 EST