From: Asmus Freytag (asmusf@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2009 - 13:25:42 CST
On 1/15/2009 10:12 AM, Mark Davis wrote:
> According to the information I have (extracting from UAX31 and UTF39
> plus some heuristics on Unicode subheaders), the following are
> archaic/obsolete characters (that is, not in customary modern use).
> There are undoubtedly errores, so I'd appreciate any feedback on any
> of these that are incorrect, or any others missing that you know of.
> (Note: I have a separate question out about some of these that are IPA
> characters.)
Obsolete for what?
It would help to have a well-defined purpose, because, like all such
classifications in Unicode, this is not black and white for all
characters, but depends in important ways on the purpose or intent of
the classification.
Also, when you ask for help, you should also make clear whether this is
for your private amusement, a work project, for reasons of editorial
work on behalf of the Consortium, or for a proposal as a future
character property. I don't need to tell you that clarity in this is
especially important for someone who represents the Consortium as an
officer. (And, yes, this info does need be repeated with each separate
request - many people may be interested in obsolete characters but not
in IPA, etc.).
In passing I note that your list contains many characters that may be
obsolete for purposes of modern orthographies, but are used in modern
scientific, mathematical, or scholarly notations.
Some of the punctuations are generic enough that their status may evolve
- now that they are accessible as Unicode characters, they are likely to
be employed more widely (again, in modern notational/editorial contexts).
Finally, many of the compatibility characters continue to be useful - as
you can read in UTR#20, it's not nearly as straightforward to replace
all of them by markup as has been assumed all along. In some contexts,
it would not be possible at all.
A./
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 15 2009 - 13:28:41 CST