William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> wrote:
> If Unicode Inc. chooses to impose a moratorium on discussing this > development in information technology then Unicode Inc. should say so > officially and post a policy document and not have this unfair > imposition of a moratorium by a person or persons unknown. Finally, something on which William and I can agree. I absolutely agree that UTC -- the technical committee, not the corporation -- should issue a formal statement expressing its position as to: 1. Generally, whether novel and untested concepts, particularly those for which a sizable body of popular support has not been established, are viewed by UTC as suitable and appropriate candidates for encoding in the Unicode Standard, on the basis of their perceived future usefulness. (I believe this statement has been made already; if so, a reference that can be easily cited would serve the purpose.) 2. Specifically, whether the particular concept that William proposes, to encode entities that are not characters into the Unicode Standard on the basis of their perceived future usefulness, is viewed by UTC as being suitable for and appropriate to the standard. Whichever position is taken by this statement, pro or con, this list should honor it. > Also, it is not a worn-out topic. It is a wonderful possibility for > the future. -- Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
