From: Kenneth Whistler (kenw@sybase.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 19:14:54 CDT
> 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
(TeX).
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.
--Ken
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Sep 06 2005 - 19:17:46 CDT