From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:52:16 CST
That's good feedback on splitting scripts. It probably depends on the
script; if there are a large number of archaic characters it may make sense
to split them out -- or sort at the end of the list -- while if there are a
small number, probably better to leave them in.
This all needs more extensive user testing; the goal is just to be able to
supply the raw material that can be used in trying different options. But
your feedback is appreciated.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:43, Andrew West <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 2009/1/16 Mark Davis <email@example.com>:
> > I have an UTC action to update UTR#39, which provides for sets of
> > 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
> > 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
> or not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 16 2009 - 10:53:34 CST