Re: Punctuation character (inverted interrobang) proposed

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 19:14:54 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Punctuation character (inverted interrobang) proposed"

    > None of which is to say that interrobang isn't a bit silly,

    But attested, as well as encoded, so we live with it.

    > and
    > inverted interrobang is even sillier.

    and basically unattested. All the attestations so far have
    been speculations about how it could or should be used, or
    jokes about how the silly interrobang would require an
    even sillier inverted interrobang in Spanish (har! har!), or
    claims based on implementations themselves based on spec

    And don't give me silly garbage about people not being
    able to use it because it isn't encoded in Unicode. We
    are encoding Claudian letters based on attestations from
    2000 years ago -- Claudius didn't need to wait for encoding
    in Unicode to propose and use his letters and get them
    carved in stone. Far less today's advertising folks, who
    could whip this puppy up in a few seconds in their fonts
    if they were actually using it in Spanish ad copy.

    John Hudson said:

    > Accepting this implied need and moving on seems a better
    > use of resources than investigating whether any Iberian
    > use is attested.

    and Patrick Andries responded:

    > Then the best solution is simply to drop the idea which has been
    > qualified as added silliness, methinks. I wonder why we still speak
    > about it.

    In my opinion, the current path of least resistance is to
    drop it, as Patrick has suggested -- not least because there
    clearly will not be consensus to encode it in the absence
    of attestation or demonstrated need.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 19:17:46 CDT