From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:04:17 CDT
At 18:48 -0700 2004-06-10, Mark Davis wrote:
>There are two reasons we might not encode a particular image as a
>character. I had said:
>>Many images are not appropriate for use in plain text, or have too
>small a user community.
>That is, you need to have something that is appropriate for use in plain text
>*and* have a significant user community.
"Significant"? How many people use medieval CJK race-horse-name characters?
>As far as I have seen from the email, there is no real evidence for
>a user community. If a character only occurs in a couple of works,
>means there is simply not the utility in encoding it; PUA is the
I don't like shifting goalposts. We have encoded many characters
which are extremely rare.
>There is a much larger set of documents containing the Prince icon,
>but we don't want to encode that either!
The Prince icon is a LOGO, Mark, and is out of scope by definition.
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 21:09:44 CDT