> If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based systems and > those using PETSCII
There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our society functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling computer in history [1] because nobody cared to standardize its? > A similar scenario might exist if C64 emulators run on Unicode-based systesm > were a widespread phenomenon They do! Even last month, there was a PETSCII directory-art contest. [2] A bit off-topic, but: As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and flimsier argument against inclusion — why isn’t there a larger community of PETSCII enthusaists? Partially because the only way to share PETSCII is through images! The consortium (passively or actively) prevents communication through exclusion and then uses the lack of communication as a justification against inclusion — it’s a poor, tautological argument, and it won’t serve the consortium long-term. Simply put, we need new criteria for inclusion — as the vast majority of the world’s systems (from written communication in text messages to the manuscripts of all new books) are already Unicode-based, we can no longer rely on a character’s existing presence outside of Unicode as a signal to warrent inclusion; we must weigh a character’s merits and usability on its own. (does it fill a gap in communication? Will it be used?) [1]: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/05/09/commodore.64.reborn/ [2]: http://csdb.dk/event/?id=2558
