From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 10:05:47 CST
At 07:51 -0700 2005-10-26, Doug Ewell wrote:
>It's still not clear to me whether you are actually arguing in favor of
>the hex characters, arguing against the inclusion of the mathematical
>letters (it's far, far too late for that), or arguing that WG2 used
>inappropriate and inconsistent criteria for rejecting the former and
>approving the latter.
(1) This is the Unicode discussion list, not a discussion list for
criticizing WG2 for its decisions. (That there is no such list may
make my complaint moot to some degree, but it is certainly true that
WG2 as a whole will hear no complaint made here only.)
(2) The disposition of comments was as follows. It seems perfectly
reasonable to me.
9.14 Six Hexadecimal digit characters
2677 Proposal for six Hexadecimal digits; Ricardo Cancho Niemietz -
individual contribution; 2003-10-21
a. Dr. Ken Whistler: The US national body is strongly opposed to do
this. The use of existing Latin characters is so prevalent that it
will disrupt everything.
b. Mr. Erkki Kolehmainen: I am surprised at the expressed requirement.
c. Mr. Michael Everson: This is a remarkable proposal for
disunification and will invalidate oceans of existing data. We should
not accept duplicate encoding.
Disposition: Not accepted - disunification with Latin A to F will be
disruptive to all existing implementations.
Relevant resolution: M45.24 (Hexadecimal Digits): Unanimous WG2
rejects the proposal for six hexadecimal digits in document N2677 for
the reason that the proposed disunification from Latin Letters A to F
is disruptive to all existing implementations which use the current
encoding of these letters to represent Hexadecimal Digits.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 10:07:58 CST