OverStrike control character
James Kass
jameskasskrv at gmail.com
Sat Jun 20 22:34:09 CDT 2020
On 2020-06-21 1:59 AM, abrahamgross--- via Unicode asked:
> Why?
>
> 2020/06/20 午後9:38:10 Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>:
>
>> You have just made one the strongest possible arguments against your own position.
>>
Quoting from TUS 13.0, 1.1 (page 3),
"Note, however, that Unicode does not encode idiosyncratic, personal,
*novel*, or private-use characters, nor does it encode logos or
graphics." (Asterisks added)
By extension, Unicode wouldn't encode a mechanism specifically for
designing novel characters.
It's been said before that Unicode encodes what is or what was, not what
might be.
Even getting "what was" encoded can be something of an uphill battle.
Consider the recent addition to Unicode mentioned by David Starner and
Doug Ewell, "214 graphic characters that provide compatibility with
various home computers from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s and with
early teletext broadcasting standards". If I'm not mistaken, many of
those characters were first proposed some twenty years ago by Frank da
Cruz and rejected by Unicode.
So even being able to prove actual legacy usage, such as can be done
with the backspace-for-overstrike technique, is no guarantee that a
proposal would be accepted.
More information about the Unicode
mailing list