From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2010 - 17:32:51 CDT
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> So you're saying they'd be better off just putting it at U+20B9? :-)
No, I'm saying that if they really need a solution this instant, they'd
be better off adhering to the Unicode Standard and 10646, and putting it
in the PUA rather than (1) overloading U+0060, (2) overloading U+20A8,
or (3) putting it at U+20B9 before that code point is formally assigned.
One of the posts on the Foradian blog congratulates the font vendor for
adding the new symbol at U+0060 and thus "exhibit[ing] the IT knowledge
power of YOUNG INDIA." This kind of slap-dash, font-hack solution is
not the hallmark of a young, vibrant, knowledgeable IT community. It is
the hallmark of an IT community that is disdainful of standards and
ignorant of the short- and long-term problems caused by incompatible,
quick-fix encoding solutions.
It's also interesting to see the posts that criticize the Indian
government for predicting it will take a year for the new symbol to
achieve widespread usage, countering smugly that Foradian was able to
create its font in a matter of days. Anyone who thinks that is all that
is necessary for a symbol to achieve widespread usage is speaking
volumes about their own level of knowledge.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 18 2010 - 17:34:44 CDT