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