From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Thu Mar 03 2011 - 16:27:14 CST
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
> OK, I admit, I've done it myself - and would to it again, in cases
> like
>
> Hexadecimal Digits
> Localisable Phrases
> Pixel instructions
>
> Common to these proposals is that they are not plain characters, but
> rather have elements of control or layout function and that they are
> not (arguably) about representing a *symbol* used in writing *text*
> (to paraphrase Ken's excellent recent contribution). In these cases,
> and similar examples, it's much harder to conceive of a way that they
> could be made to fit the scope of Unicode, and I've not been hesitant
> to express that view. :)
Actually, I thought the hexadecimal digits (unlike your other examples)
were clearly plain-text characters, just as much so as compatibility
Roman numerals. No doubt, they had other critical problems, such as
confusability with Basic Latin and lack of an essential input method,
and were the wrong way to go about solving the stated layout problem.
>> lohmatii's original question to the public list was whether it was
>> "possible" that his suggested symbols would be encoded. Since the
>> public list has no standing in the decision to encode or not, perhaps
>> the stock answer to all such questions should be, "I don't know;
>> write up a proposal and find out."
You didn't respond to this, but when someone comes onto the list and
says "Is it possible that X could be encoded?", the only possibilities
seem to be:
(a) handicapping the potential proposal
(b) laying out the process, precedents, policies and criteria
(c) "I don't know; write up a proposal and find out"
(d) ignore the post
Since (b) is so easily misinterpreted as (a), and (c) doesn't help the
poster decide whether it is worth his time to write a formal proposal, I
guess I'll stick with (d).
-- 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 : Thu Mar 03 2011 - 16:30:27 CST