From: Christopher Fynn (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 00:27:47 CST
On 05/01/2009, David Starner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Christopher Fynn <email@example.com>
>> Leaving aside the fact that many of the emoji go way beyond what most
>> people would reasonably consider to be part of plain text, removing
>> the "pre-existing character set" limitation seems to open the door to
>> any entity, large or influential enough to create or establish a
>> de-facto or official "standard" of some sort, to eventually get the
>> characters in such a set encoded as compatibility characters.
>> Is Unicode sure it wants to go down this road?
> Does Unicode have an option?
~ Probably not.
> The market pressures to support other
> standards didn't just disappear and people expect to be able to
> roundtrip their information through Unicode without problems.
If this is what the policy is now then Unicode & ISO 10646 need to
clearly state somewhere that characters in other "standards" -
pre-existing or new official or de-facto - are now legitimate
canidates for encoding for interoperability reasons. And what the
limitations on this policy are.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 00:30:28 CST