On 15 July 2011 13:40, Michael Everson <ever...@evertype.com> wrote: > > I think that having encoded symbols for control characters (which we > already have for some of them) is no bad thing, and the argument > about "too many characters" is not compelling, as there are only some > dozens of these characters encoded, not thousands and thousands or > anything.
I oppose encoding graphic clones of non-graphic characters on principle, not because of how many there are. Nevertheless, there are potentially a large number of characters for which people may wish to have visible clones encoded: the 97 tag characters are format characters, and may not be displayed under some systems (e.g. Windows 7); and although the 256 variation selector characters are non-spacing marks rather than format characters, some systems won't display them even if the font has visible glyphs mapped to the characters, so there is an argument to encode visible clones of tag and vs characters so that people can discuss their use in plain text. I am not convinced by such arguments. Andrew
