From: Richard Wordingham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 29 2011 - 20:36:12 CDT
On Mon, 30 May 2011 01:35:50 +0100
Michael Everson <email@example.com> wrote:
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> > - there was a time when Unicode was not intended to ultimately
> > encode every script.
> This is not true. The Universal Character Set is intended to be
I said 'Unicode', not the 'Universal Character Set'. As evidence, see
Section 2.1 of 'Unicode 88', available at
"_Distinction of 'modern-use' characters:_ Unicode gives higher
priority to ensuring utility for the future that to preserving past
antiquities. Unicode aims in the first instance at the characters
published in modern text (e.g. in the union of all newspapers and
magazines printed in the world in 1988), whose number is undoubtedly
far below 2^14 = 16,384. Beyond these modern-use characters, all
others may be defined to be obsolete or rare these are better
candidates for private-use registration than for congesting the public
list of generally-useful Unicodes."
This, of course, is now merely history.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 29 2011 - 20:39:02 CDT