On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.
I thought that had been done quite well. > > 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. > Which seems to make Unicode a defender of the status quo. Inaction is as political as action. "We are holders of the standards for the technology for encoding symbols, and we won't admit new symbols until they are widely used..." not necessarily the intent, but possibly the impact - that evolution of symbolic communication will be hampered? > (but it seems some may enjoy it too much.) I am totally mystified by this remark. Perhaps power and responsibility is a burden not a joy. And maybe factors of 2 don't really matter and it doesn't matter whether we use pi or newpi, or consider ASCII as 7-bit or 8-bit. Bob from offline- > Oh well, I suppose you convinced me. I just pity all those guys who >learned the decimals of Pi - but then again, they will get twice the fun >now... LOL
