From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 16 2010 - 14:23:40 CST
On 16 Feb 2010, at 15:54, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> You snipped the proper context of my reply:
>>>>> On the contrary, Unicode has, on occasion, deliberately encoded
>>>>> characters for which there was credible evidence of planned
>>>>> widespread future use.
>>>> Which ones, besides EURO SIGN?
>>> There were a plethora of math characters:
> Fair enough. Do you feel there is an analogy between the math
> compatibility alphabets and the proposed new Tifinagh letters?
I just noted that characters have been added on the principle on
planned future common use.
As for the experimental characters, my guess you might do the same if
they get some such status. It's a bit hen and egg problem: you don't
add them because nobody uses them, and they are not used because they
are not added.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 16 2010 - 14:25:32 CST