From: Michael Everson (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Nov 24 2006 - 05:40:51 CST
At 12:16 +0100 2006-11-24, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>AFAIK, that would be a *big* policy change for Unicode. Until now, you
>just needed to demonstrate an actual *use*.
Are these used in text other than online text?
>Now, you would need to demonstrate a *widespread* use? Such an
>policy, applied a few years ago, would have seriously reduced the
>size of the Unicode set.
Sometimes the policy isn't very hard to understand. I still don't
know why the LITTER DUDE is not encoded.
>For instance, N'ko would never have been encoded (it is just used by a
This is untrue. There are many schools in West Africa which teach
N'Ko. I have been to one in Bamako.
>Encoding requests are very often accompanied by political statements
>(the N'ko is, again, a good example). Unicode should be about the
>facts (charecters in use), not about what you think of the political
>agenda of the people who request it.
N'Ko was not encoded for "political" reasons.
-- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 24 2006 - 05:43:08 CST