From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Aug 08 2006 - 12:21:07 CDT
> but there are still many
common symbols that it would be useful to encode as characters, even
if there is not clear evidence of their use in a plain text context.
Here I disagree. If there is not strong evidence of their use in a
plain-text context, then we don't have any call for encoding them.
On 8/8/06, Andrew West <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 07/08/06, Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I have been proposing symbols piece-meal for years. It would be
> > pleasant if it were not as difficult as it has been. Many of the
> > symbols we have encoded were put there not because of any particular
> > utility, but because they were inherited from other character sets.
> > There are gaps which could (and should) be filled.
> I agree with Michael on this. Unicode now has quite a large set of
> symbols that many people find very useful; but there are still many
> common symbols that it would be useful to encode as characters, even
> if there is not clear evidence of their use in a plain text context.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 08 2006 - 12:30:04 CDT