From: Andrew S (asunic@mail.ru)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:14:08 CST
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.
I'm arguing two separate things:
1. WG2 gave inappropriate justification for rejecting the hex characters.
2. WG2 used inconsistent criteria by rejecting the hex characters while accepting the math characters.
I'm not arguing for or against either the hex characters or the math characters; that's a separate issue.
My concern is that the WG2 judgements in question defeat the point of any published criteria for the acceptance or rejection of new characters. People considering proposing the inclusion of new characters now can't even rely on established precedent. I do understand that the math characters are included permanently, so there's no point in agitating for their removal, but it's entirely reasonable to expect WG2 to either say "the math characters' inclusion was proper, and can be relied on as precedent for future inclusion of characters" or "the math characters' inclusion was a mistake, so even though those characters will not be removed, they should not be relied on as precedent for future inclusion of characters".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:14:55 CST