Re: The rules of encoding (from Re: Missing geometric shapes)

From: Asmus Freytag <>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 22:24:00 -0800

On 11/9/2012 7:14 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
> 2012/11/9 Asmus Freytag <>:
>> Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on expected usage. Currency symbols are a well known case for that, but there have been instances of phonetic characters encoded in order to facilitate creation and publication of certain databases for specialists, without burdening them with instant obsolescence (if they had used PUA characters).
> But work is still being performed to implement the characters ans
> start using it massively, even if it's not encoded.

I think this entire line of discussion is rather drifting into
irrelevant details. Yes, I agree that it should matter whether serious
resources have been committed in support of a new symbol or new piece of
notation. That forms part of the evidence that marks some of these
exceptional cases as viable standardized characters - despite lack of
prior, widespread use. That, somehow, was my point.

However, I find it pointless to speculate about the details. Exceptions
are exceptions, and the most important issue is to reserve the
flexibility to deal with them, when they arise.

After they have arisen, they are best dealt with on a case-by-case basis
(or in the case of currency symbols, we now have an entire category for
which there is consensus hat it merits exceptional treatment).

Received on Sat Nov 10 2012 - 00:27:16 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Nov 10 2012 - 00:27:16 CST