From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 15:46:18 CDT
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Of D. Starner
> Shouldn't the encoding be geared towards those who use it the most?
Certainly how heavily / regularly it is used by different groups of
users is a consideration, but not necessarily the only one. How would
you compare (hypothetically) 50 that use it daily versus 5,000,000 that
use it a few times a year? If the problem were all but impossible to fix
for the 50, and not much of an issue for the 5M, you'd obviously go with
the needs of the 50; but that decision is made based on more than just
populations and frequency of usage. And if you're a product vendor, you
might be concerned more about how many product-support calls either
option is likely to generate than sheer number of users.
> So far, all the people who actually use this script on a day to day
> who have actually spoken up have been in favor of unification. (I may
> be mistaken; it's been a long thread.)
The people who have spoken up and who might use it on a day-to-day basis
are paleographers, some of whom are Semiticists and some of whom are
not. The Semitic paleographers have spoken in favour of unification,
while all others (I think) have spoken against unification.
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 15:46:54 CDT