Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Fri May 20 2005 - 15:01:08 CDT

  • Next message: David Starner: "Re: ASCII and Unicode lifespan"


    > > Personally, I think that if nothing else we could and should encode
    > > it, but I was shot down.
    > And that rationale for not encoding it is what I'm interested in seeing.

    If you don't accept the technical argument, as supported by
    Patrick, for not encoding undeciphered scripts, then you
    can fall back to this rationale:

      It was not encoded because consensus could not be obtained
      in the two encoding committees to encode it.
    That is the ultimate reason why candidate scripts and characters
    generally fail to get into the standard.

    And the committees are under no obligation to *convince* you that
    their technical rationale is airtight, logical, or self-evident.

    When groups of technical experts disagree *that* a script should
    be encoded, to the extent that they fail to reach a sufficient
    level of consensus to pass the various ballots and votes, they
    almost invariably also disagree about *why* a script should
    (or should not) be encoded, and even disagree about why they


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 20 2005 - 15:05:46 CDT