From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 19:00:01 CDT
At 15:34 -0700 2004-06-10, Mark Davis wrote:
>This argument does not hold water. Simply because some images appear
>in some documents does not mean that they automatically should be
>represented as encoded characters. Many images are not appropriate
>for use in plain text, or have too small a user community. They
>should be represented as private use characters, or as literal
>images. The Prince glyph, on-beyond-zebra characters, the images on
>images on http://www.aperfectworld.org/animals.htm, etc. are in
>quite a number of documents, but that doesn't mean that any of them
>necessarily qualify as characters for encoding.
Mark, come on. Doke's phonetic transcription of !Xung is a set of
explicit glyphs representing specific sounds, indeed more precisely
than IPA allows (I don't think IPA specifies a representation for
retroflex clicks). Apart from the question whether or not the
characters are important enough for people to want to be able to
interchange them as encoded UCS characters (which is stipulated as a
question), it's just not on to say that these are the same kinds of
things as Prince's logo or the Seussian extensions.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 19:03:51 CDT