On 26 May 2013, at 23:15, David Starner <prosfilaes_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Problems from Unicode generally come from of two places; compatibility with non-Unicode data sets, and people with different goals working on it. For pictographs, when Google comes forth saying this is the set we need supported, that was the set they needed supported for compatibility.
And then experts in symbols from Germany and Ireland said "We'll accept this incomplete set but we insist on some additions so that the set makes better sense." And that gave us what we have.
For instance, the Japanese telco sets had nearly, but not all, the animals in the Asian Zodiacs. The encoded set has all of them however. That's way better than it would have been had we just accepted Google's minimal request.
> Goals can not be decided in an scientific way, and there are many people who have the goals for Unicode to support text, and not to support an arbitrary set of pictographs.
In my experience I have learned that splitters win out over lumpers. Often it takes a long time due to the stubbornness of the lumpers.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
Received on Sun May 26 2013 - 17:41:51 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun May 26 2013 - 17:41:53 CDT