<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> </head> <body><div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi: embed;"><style>p{margin:0}</style><div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">James Kass wrote:</span></div><div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span></p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">> On 2021-10-12 6:18 PM, William_J_G Overington via Unicode wrote:</span><br style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td>The word "most" seemed kinder than "with one exception,".<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><br>
Indeed. Thank you.<br>
<br>
It also has the advantage that if one or more people agree with me that it will still be true.<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
> Yes. And if you could find just one person to agree with you, then you'd both be wrong.</span></div><div><p><br style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></p><p>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.</p><p><br></p><p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><br>
... The character map has plenty of unused space.<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><br>
... The character map has plenty of unused space.<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
> It's not like a penny collection folder where the goal is to fill every slot.</span></div><div><p><br style="white-space: pre-wrap;"></p><p>That is correct.</p><p><br></p><p>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.</p><p><br></p><p>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.</p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
</span><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><br>
If an exception can be made for emoji then an exception can be made for encoding by examined thesis.<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
> Encoding emoji was an anomaly prompted by peculiar circumstances and a unique chain of events.</span></div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I would say 'particular' rather than 'peculiar'.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">> Nobody should ever cite it as precedent, so of course everybody will. </span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap; display: inline !important;">Sigh.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p>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.</p><p><br></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">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.</span></p><p><br></p><div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><tbody><tr><td width="3" bgcolor="#888888"></td><td width="3"></td><td width="3"></td><td><br>
Futuristic policies are needed for the future.<br>
</td></tr></tbody></table><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">
> Anybody can predict the future if accuracy isn't important.</span></div><div><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">I don't understand why you have stated that. Is it relevant here? If so, how?</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">> In the event, policies must be based on current realities rather than speculation.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">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.</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">William Overington</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Wednesday 13 October 2021</span></p><p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;"><br></span></p></div></div></body></html>