From: Andrew West (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 04:43:23 CST
2009/1/16 Mark Davis <email@example.com>:
> I have an UTC action to update UTR#39, which provides for sets of characters
> that people may want to exclude from identifiers. It has an 'archaic'
> category, and I need to update the contents.
I'm not quite sure why archaic scripts and archaic characters should
be excluded from identifiers. Many archaic scripts (e.g. Runic) and
archaic/obsolete characters (e.g. long s) have widespread current
usage, and I can envisage users wanting to make use of them in
> Independently, in doing a character picker
> (http://www.macchiato.com/unicode/char-picker), we found it useful to put
> the archaic/obsolete characters in separate sections.
It's probably just me, but I found this to be one of the least helpful
features of the character picker when I tried it out. I personally
find it much more helpful to have all characters of the same script in
the same place, regardless of whether they are in common current usage
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 04:45:23 CST