From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2010 - 22:31:12 CDT
¦b Jul 18, 2010 4:32 PM ®É¡A Doug Ewell ¼g¨ì¡G
> 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.
Very well said, Doug. The question I'm curious about is, What is the most productive way to help the people advocating this approach understand that it's a bad idea?
Hoani H. Tinikini
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 18 2010 - 22:33:30 CDT