Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:56:25 CST

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "Re: Improper grounds for rejection of proposal N2677"

    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 *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:59:01 CST