From: Tom Emerson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 10:13:14 CDT
Michael Everson writes:
> As well it should. "Err on the side of generosity in encoding" is how
> I put it. Ken has elsewhere alluded to the thousands of Han
> characters which are either mistakes copied from dictionary to
> dictionary for centuries (and therefore encoded in Unicode as part of
> a particular corpus of interest) or whose meanings and/or
> pronunciations are simply unknown to us, having been lost, but which
> are included for the same cultural interest by the user community.
> Sometimes I wonder why we don't encode the Phaistos script in light
> of that, really. ;-)
And why not encode the Phaistos script regardless. Is the sheer
uniqueness that stands in the way of any encoding effort? Comparison
against thousands of random, accidental, historical Han variants seems
disingenuous. Why was it rejected back in 1997? The proposal isn't
even available on the Unicode site any more.
> Most of the threads on this list have been likewise unproductive of
> late, Mark. What is apparent is that a number of individuals think
> that it is nice to use this list to bash Unicode. I for one (and I
> doubt I am the only one) would like to see Sarasvati take some action
> which might reduce the noise level on this list. (Using mail filters
> does not seem to be sufficient.)
A moderated list would be a Good Thing, but I expect more work than
Sarasvati, or anyone else who would be satisfactory to the majority,
has time for.
-- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Software Architect http://www.basistech.com "Beware the lollipop of mediocrity: lick it once and you suck forever"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 10:14:00 CDT