From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:56:25 CST
At 00:14 +0400 2005-10-27, Andrew S wrote:
>I'm arguing two separate things:
>1. WG2 gave inappropriate justification for rejecting the hex characters.
Incorrect. These are nothing more than duplicate characters. U+04F2
is correctly written with the
>2. WG2 used inconsistent criteria by rejecting the hex characters
>while accepting the math characters.
Incorrect. The specific shapes of the math alphabets DIFFER from the
regular alphabet in a specific context, which is NOT the case for the
letters A-F as used in hexadecimal notation.
>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.
You're just wrong. Sorry, but there it is.
>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".
I accept the requirement of the math experts with regard to the
special math alphabets. They, and we, reject the notion that A-F
should be cloned to represent hexadecimals.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:59:01 CST