Re: Character proposal: SUBSCRIPT TEN

From: Michael Everson (
Date: Thu Jan 17 2008 - 04:11:47 CST

  • Next message: André Szabolcs Szelp: "Re: Latin J capital letter with caron"

    At 18:47 -0800 2008-01-16, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
    > > Does it look more convincing now?
    >Not yet.
    >You have:
    >1. <2071, 2070> available in plain text simply to represent the content.
    >2. <sub>10</sub> available in many markup languages.
    >And the problem is that neither of those works, in plain text or
    >in HTML pages, to get the monospace layout you want for this
    >But I'm certainly not convinced that Unicode has to solve the monospace
    >layout problem for plain text.

    I think he's making a pretty reasonable case, given the fat that we
    do support legacy encodings of other parts of the world, and that he
    actually wants to use the character in his data.

    >The thing that would be convincing for me, personally (although I
    >don't speak for everybody on this list, obvious), is if I felt
    >there was an interoperability issue for working with the GOST 10859
    >standard that required introduction of a compatibility character
    >for one-to-one mapping. But it is hard to make such an interoperability
    >argument for essentially dead encodings. It is much easier to
    >make the case for widespread encodings that everybody has to
    >implement, like GB 18030, which has various thingums in it that
    >would otherwise not likely have been encoded in Unicode.

    Soviet data is a pretty big pile of cheese, though.

    >Now granted that case isn't as intractable as what you are
    >dealing with, because it doesn't involve inability to line
    >up columns in monospace printout.
    >But I think it illustrates another instance of appropriate
    >skepticism at this point about simply encoding compatibility
    >characters in Unicode for every character in every obscure
    >historic character encoding that people dig up.

    I prefer to err on the side of generosity. GOST isn't all that "obscure".

    >I think you would need to answer that skepticism to get the
    >UTC on your side for encoding a subscript 10 as a single

    How does one "answer" scepticism?

    >On the other hand, there is so much compatibility dreck in
    >the standard already, maybe nobody would even notice. ;-)

    Quite so.

    Michael Everson *

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 17 2008 - 04:18:34 CST