From: Andrew S (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 15:00:17 CST
David Starner wrote:
> Your hex letters don't have a large support among the people who would
> use them; note that the mathematical letters had the support of the
> American Mathematical Society. If the ACM were to support these
> characters, the case might be different.
> But instead those who need hexidecimal digits would instead use the
> ASCII versions, making your proposed characters confusing and most
> people would just discourage their use. Unicode does not need more
> characters that people aren't supposed to use.
All of those are valid arguments which WG2 could cite as justification for rejecting the proposal.
Note that I didn't claim that WG2 made the wrong decision in choosing to reject the proposal.
> To summarize, the grounds weren't improper; you just didn't agree with
> them. Procedurely speaking, the rejection was entirely well founded.
WG2 is competent enough to understand that its cited justification (that the new hex characters would be disruptive to existing implementations) is clearly false, as I explained in my previous message, yet that's the justification which it chose to cite. Therefore there must have been some other reason which it didn't cite; otherwise, it would have approved the proposal. It seemed to me that the arguments which you mentioned were probably the actual reason for rejecting the proposal, yet WG2 didn't cite those arguments; if they were indeed the reason, then WG2 should have said so.
The fact that WG2 knowingly cited a false justification is the reason why I said that the grounds were improper.
If the grounds for that rejection were proper, then it would also be proper for WG2 to reject any arbitrary proposal on the grounds that the moon is made of cheese.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 25 2005 - 15:02:08 CST