From: Richard Ishida (ishida@w3.org)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2009 - 09:05:05 CST
I agree, and I'd go further to say that I think it would be more useful to
spend the effort on adding detail to the descriptions of characters found in
the Unicode charts, especially where there are ambiguities about which of
several similar looking characters are commonly used in which circumstances.
RI
============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://rishida.net/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicore-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicore-bounce@unicode.org]
> On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: 16 January 2009 11:55
> To: UTC; unicode Unicode Discussion
> Subject: Re: Obsolete characters
>
> On 16 Jan 2009, at 10:43, Andrew West wrote:
>
> >> 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
> > or not.
>
> I am of the same opinion as Andrew.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 22 2009 - 09:06:13 CST