From: Andrew West (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Aug 09 2006 - 04:53:10 CDT
On 08/08/06, Mark Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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.
I guess that most people know that I have always been a strong
advocate of only encoding characters for which there is tangible
evidence for their existence and need to be encoded. However, the
nature of symbols mean that they may not commonly occur in plain text
contexts, despite being widely occuring and very well known (e.g.
Christian ichthys symbol or Chinese double happiness symbol). I
believe that there is a utility in encoding widely occuring symbols,
irrespective of their use in traditional text contexts, as many people
would find it useful to be able to represent such symbols as
characters rather than as images (primarily on web pages I imagine). I
would therefore support applying less restrictive criteria for
encoding *widely occuring* symbols.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 09 2006 - 05:03:52 CDT