Robert Palais wrote: > I will be doing so, and apologize if my inquiry intruded on your > work, and at the same time, appreciate the many thoughtful > considerations on the matter of process of symbol standardization > that I received.
and later: > I apologize again if my misunderstanding that I was advised to > bring it up directly here offended you... Please be assured that nobody here feels offended, intruded upon, or otherwise discommoded as a result of any of your inquiries. You have every right, and in fact you are strongly encouraged, to discuss your proposed new character and ask questions about adding it to Unicode. For my part at least, I feel it is important to explain to proponents WHY their proposed characters may not be suitable for encoding, rather than simply telling them No. > Observing your discussions, I do wonder if the participants > recognize the responsibility of their influence upon ideas, > through symbols I think the Unicode Consortium and WG2 do understand this, and that is why they are so reluctant to encode symbols that do not have established usage, as in the case of 2 pi, or seek to make a social or political statement that the Consortium and WG2 do not intend, as in the case of copyleft. > (but it seems some may enjoy it too much.) I am totally mystified by this remark. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
