From: Michael Everson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Aug 08 2006 - 17:59:01 CDT
At 10:21 -0700 2006-08-08, Mark Davis wrote:
>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.
"Strong evidence"? Where was the "strong evidence" that Zapf's giant
heart-shaped exclamation point was ever used in a plain-text context?
It was built into a laserprinter. Ooh, "legacy". Yippee!
You just sent a message out saying you thought the UTC might consider
being more lenient on some symbol additions. Several of us (a dozen I
should say) would like nothing better. Not because we want to dump
thousands of dreck-characters into the standard. But because we know
a lot about what would make sensible additions to the set of usable
symbols that we've got.
So which is it? The noble heart-shaped exclamation point that no one
no one no one uses? Or the accursed do-not-litter man, ubiquitous but
shunned by the UTC?
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 09 2006 - 01:52:49 CDT