Unicode fundamental character identity

[Doug Ewell]

Piotr Grochowski wrote:

> In fact, I believe the arguments in L2/25-010 are so blatantly wrong,
> as I disproved them in multiple different ways, that I suspect there
> is some lobbying involved. This is potentially dangerous because of
> the possibility that lobbying will eventually affect the
> interpretation of stability policies, which would effectively result
> in actual compatibility breaking changes.

As one of the co-authors of the legacy symbols proposals, I will state that if the Script Encoding Working Group and/or UTC, whose wisdom and judgment on such things I trust, determine that additional characters are justified, I will assist in preparing any necessary proposals.

As a participant on the Unicode public mailing list for more than 27 years, I would suggest that accusing the encoding committees, or other contributors, of treachery or malfeasance is usually not an effective way to influence encoding decisions.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org