On 11/08/2012 09:00 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I stand by it: we don't encode what would be cool to have. We encode
what people *use*.
Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded
based on expected usage.
...
What these examples have in common is that they reflect a small number
of characters with an "instant" user community that's well defined and
understood (and appropriate to the type of character). The main reason
for the restriction to "encode what people use" is that characters
cannot be retracted if the hoped for enthusiasm for them doesn't
materialize.
The other reason is that the Unicode Standard is a standard - what it
encodes needs to be worthy of standardization. There are exceptional
instances where "leading" standardization can be justified - they are
few and far between, but they exist. As exceptions prove the rule -
the majority of characters will continue to be cases where
standardization follows demonstrated use.
Well said; and I accept the correction to my position. It does happen,
but not very often and not without good reason.
~mark
