From: Asmus Freytag (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 13:30:58 CST
On 1/3/2009 9:59 AM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
>>> ...unless they are unsuited for plain text encoding because of their
>>> very nature.
>> Such as, for example, stateful controls, code-set shifting commands
>> and other strange beasts, that would be difficult, if not impossible
>> to handle as compatibility characters. I can easily conceive of more
>> exotic examples, if that helps.
> I find it intriguing that in the world of plain-text character
> encoding, which has embraced a limited set of stateful controls at
> least since the Baudot/Murray era, the notion of stateful controls is
> being dismissed out of hand,
Unicode was definitely designed in firm opposition to ISO 2022 as well
as ISO 10646 DIS-1 which all use(d) stateful controls to achieve
code-set switching. Trying to reintroduce this, for example for private
use set switching, is to take aim at one of the core design goals for
> while colored, animated drawings of baby chicks popping out of their
> eggs are considered "compatibility characters."
> (I almost wrote "chirping." Are audio-enabled characters on the
Been there, done that: U+0007, the control code to ring the BELL on your
terminal predates Unicode by decades!
PS: I'm content to allow the proposers to suggest the use of
'cartoon-style' drawings that suggest movement by graphical means. If
that's what they end up proposing and if that is satisfactory for
interoperability purposes, then I have no further problem. (I also would
not have a problem if user agents that display yellow emoticons were to
give a colorful rendition of U+263A).
If the proposal can be formulated that way, the whole line of argument
falls by the wayside and the live animation becomes a modern form of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 13:34:03 CST