Encoding ConScripts

William_J_G Overington wjgo_10009 at btinternet.com
Wed Oct 13 06:37:01 CDT 2021

James Kass wrote:

> On 2021-10-12 6:18 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote:
The word "most" seemed kinder than "with one exception,".
Indeed. Thank you.
It also has the advantage that if one or more people agree with me that 
it will still be true.
> Yes.  And if you could find just one person to agree with you, then 
> you'd both be wrong.

Well, I opine that if one or more people do choose to agree with me on 
this, then his, her, or their posts should be considered on the basis of 
what he, she, or they post, and not on the basis of a prejudging before 
the posting takes place.

...  The character map has plenty of unused space.
...  The character map has plenty of unused space.
> It's not like a penny collection folder where the goal is to fill 
> every slot.

That is correct.

However, if a proposal by thesis is accepted for encoding without 
evidence of substantial existing use it may be around a hundred 
characters each needing a code point or fewer out of well over half a 
million thus far unused code points. So the goal is very very much less 
than filling every slot.

It is a matter of the risk of the allowing of an encoding and it not 
being used balanced against the amount of good that could be done if the 
encoding being accepted leads to widespread use.
If an exception can be made for emoji then an exception can be made for 
encoding by examined thesis.
> Encoding emoji was an anomaly prompted by peculiar circumstances and a 
> unique chain of events.

I would say 'particular' rather than 'peculiar'.

> Nobody should ever cite it as precedent, so of course everybody will. 
> Sigh.

No, it is a precedent. The rules were changed for emoji. So on a sauce 
for pasta is sauce for rice basis, as the Unicode Technical Committee 
has changed the rules for one set of particular circumstances, it can 
change them again for other particular circumstances.

Whether the Unicode Technical Committee does actually change the rules 
for some specific particular circumstances is for the future, yet the 
precedent exists and it is perfectly reasonable to refer to it if one is 
told that something is not possible.

Futuristic policies are needed for the future.
> Anybody can predict the future if accuracy isn't important.

I don't understand why you have stated that. Is it relevant here? If so, 

> In the event, policies must be based on current realities rather than 
> speculation.

No. One needs to consider both current realities and speculative 
possibilities for the future and make a balanced  decision as to how to 
proceed going forwards, bearing in mind traditions but not being 
shackled by them such that they are damaging the future.

William Overington

Wednesday 13 October 2021

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20211013/b22f1ccc/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Unicode mailing list