At 10:06 -0700 2002-01-18, Robert Palais wrote: >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?
Unicode is for the exchange of data. If there is only one user of the di-pi, then there is no need to exchange the data. I mean, I'd be impressed if there were 50 documents that used the di-pi. So far we've heard of three. Is it unreasonable that we expect to know whether a character is actually useful before we encode it? -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
