On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 01:00:59AM +0200, Philippe Verdy wrote: > 2015-05-23 20:50 GMT+02:00 Petr Tomasek <[email protected]>: > > > Hm, it seems that there is much more to be encoded in Unicode than just > > the quarter-tone signs.. > > > > Clearly not a valid arguments against encoding a character.
Where do I argue against encoding a character? I was just surprised by how many musical symbols are there which would benefit from being encoded in unicode. Not less and not more. P.T. > There are > plenty of characters still not encoded even in scripts already encoded, > this never meant that the encoded part should have been stalled until the > set was "complete". > Each ecoded character has to be evaluated individually, even if it makes > sense to add them in groups when their association in that group is > necessary to make them usable (for example it would have been a non-sense > in any language to encode only Latin vowels without any consonnant, but it > would have been meaningful to encoded only basic Arabic consonnants and > postpone the encoding of basic vowels. > The merits of an encoding proposal is measured by its usage and usability > in a well-established (orthographic) convention. It is important then to > explore what is this convention and why more than 1 character are needed > together for that convention. Then we can compare with other competing > conventionw what they have in common (this is what Unicode considers a > "script", even if it is not necessarily for writing spoken languages). >
