From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:53:00 CST
At 00:11 +0400 2005-10-27, Andrew S wrote:
> > (1) This is the Unicode discussion list, not a discussion list for
> > criticizing WG2 for its decisions.
>Is this the correct discussion list for stating criticisms of WG2
>decisions for the purpose of obtaining clarifications on the
>criteria and precedent which WG2 will use for future decisions?
It is not a forum for communicating with WG2.
> > 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.
>That it will "disrupt everything" and "invalidate oceans of existing
>data" I still don't understand.
A, B, C, D, E, and F are already used by *EVERYONE* for representing
hexadecimal data. My Calculator on OS X can even perform calculations
using them. Therefore, hexadecimal numbers are already represented by
the letters A, B, C, D, E, and F, and the proposal is a bad one.
>No current Unicode program will be disrupted by the inclusion of any
>new characters in the Unicode standard.
>Nor will any existing data be invalidated.
>(Nor will any non-Unicode programs or data be disrupted or
>invalidated; they are immune to WG2 decisions, even if WG2 were to
>decide to break all existing Unicode programs and invalidate all
>existing Unicode data by scrapping all existing characters and
>starting over from scratch.)
>If I propose the inclusion of my favorite cartoon drawings as
... they might be accepted, if the argument had merits.
>and even propose assigning them the numeric values 3, pi, and 42,
>and WG2 approves them, no Unicode program will be broken, since no
>Unicode program is required to understand any new characters (or
>even any particular existing ones).
>So I don't understand your argument at all.
Well, then we are in happy reciprocation.
WG2 and the UTC jointly manage the Universal Character Set, and
neither group would do something as daft as add duplicate characters
for hexadecimal notation.
Of course, when Tengwar hexadecimal digits are eventually added, you
might use those. Though the directionality might chafe.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 26 2005 - 14:59:03 CST