Andrew C. West scripsit: > And perhaps Michael would be kind enough to prepare a proposal for > traffic signs if you asked nicely ;)
Yes, but it will be only four lines long. :-) > H.7 Some criteria weaken the case for encoding A few of these criteria seem a bit flaky to me. > There is evidence that > -- the symbol is primarily used free-standing (traffic signs) > -- the notational system is not widely used on computers (dance notation, > traffic signs) So it looks like there are at least two reasons to shoot down traffic signs already. OTOH, lots of things are not widely used on computers precisely because they have no standard representation (minority scripts being the obvious case.) > -- the symbol is purely decorative This would seem to exclude dingbats altogether. > -- the identity of the symbol is usually ignored in processing Eh? > H.10 Perceived usefulness > The fact that a symbol merely seems to be useful or potentially > useful is precisely not a reason to code it. Demonstrated usage, or > demonstrated demand, on the other hand, does constitute a good reason > to encode the symbol. Amen. -- The Imperials are decadent, 300 pound John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> free-range chickens (except they have http://www.reutershealth.com teeth, arms instead of wings and http://www.ccil.org/~cowan dinosaurlike tails). --Elyse Grasso
