From: Mike Ayers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 19:33:02 CDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:35 PM
> 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.
...because none of them have ever been used as characters? Really,
I'm quite surprised at having to mention this distinction.
> From: "D. Starner" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Thu, 2004 Jun 10 13:46
> > John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > We must be talking past one another somehow, but I don't
> understand how.
> > > To represent the text as originally written, I need a
> digital representation
> > > for each of the characters in it. Since all I want to do
> is reprint
> > > the book -- I don't need to use the unusual characters in
> interchange --
> > > the PUA and a commissioned font seem just perfect to me.
I don't think "all I want to do is reprint the book" is a reasonable
constraint upon future usage. Reprinting the book brings with it the
potential for its special characters to gain currency, even if only in the
context of discussing the book.
> > I'm not
> > even sure you can trust a commissioned font to be
> installable on the operating
> > systems of the next few decades.
Font support has only improved with time. What causes you to
foresee a sharp reversal?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 19:36:44 CDT