<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2023-10-28 00:14, William_J_G
Overington via Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf1eecb.35b0.18b752276e7.Webtop.83@btinternet.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi:
embed;">
<style>p{margin:0}</style><span style="white-space-collapse:
preserve;">Asmus Freytag wrote as follows.</span>
<div>
<p><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space-collapse: preserve;">> </span><span
style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse: preserve;
display: inline !important;">The fact that a symbol is
cataloged in some list is itself not sufficient reason to
consider it a text element in plain text. Which would be a
necessary requirement for encoding.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">Yet it is not just
"some list", it is an ISO/IEC list.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">Yet why is
considering a symbol as a text element in plain text a
necessary requirement for encoding? Apart from that rule
being the existing rule that was made at sometime in the
past, possibly under different circumstances than those
that exist now.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It makes perfect sense to me that the Unicode standard exercises
restraint in its role in the ecosystem. And being a "plain text
encoding" seems like a very helpful kind of restraint. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf1eecb.35b0.18b752276e7.Webtop.83@btinternet.com">
<div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi:
embed;">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">Is that rule
limiting progress?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Most such decisions are tradeoffs. Most such decisions occur in
the context of an ecosystem which includes fonts, text layout
software, shaping engines, input methods, operating systems, user
comprehension, and more. Most decisions impose various costs on
various parts of the ecosystem. So the question to ask is, will
such an addition, in context, lead to benefits which outweigh the
costs, and have an advantage over alternatives?</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf1eecb.35b0.18b752276e7.Webtop.83@btinternet.com">
<div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi:
embed;">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">Suppose please, for
example, that someone is using a desktop publishing
program to produce a document, an instruction manual for a
piece of equipment, the document initially stored in a
proprietary file format, with the person intending to
export the text in a PDF document.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;"><br>
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">One frameful of
text may perhaps start with "Please consider the symbol in
Figure 1 ..." and another frameful of text may show the
symbol together with a text caption and text stating that
it is Figure 1.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I think that this is a weak example, because a desktop publishing
program has an alternative way to display the symbol in Figure 1:
as a graphic. And the PDF format has comprehensive ways to
represent graphics as well as text. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>In North America, there used to be a brand of hand tools called
Craftsman. They had a life-time unconditional replacement
guarantee. The joke used to be that "any Craftsman tool can be
used as a hammer". If you broke your Craftsman screwdriver while
banging in nails in with the handle, get it replaced. In the same
token, these discussion make me think that some people believe
that any mark on a page should be made using character and text
mechanisms, rather than graphics or other mechanisms which might
be more appropriate.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf1eecb.35b0.18b752276e7.Webtop.83@btinternet.com">
<div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi:
embed;">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size: 16px; white-space-collapse:
preserve; display: inline !important;">Is it reasonable
that the symbol is encoded into Unicode as a character,
notwithstanding that it is not actually in a run of text
characters? Plane 5 is currently empty, why not use it?</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>IMHO, no, it is not reasonable. It is a small benefit, given the
easy alternative of representing symbols as graphics, and that
good layout tools can embed graphics in runs of text. Lack of
Unicode scalar values is not the constraint. The discussion of
encoding this symbol, and all the infinity of other symbols which
can be justified the same way, have an opportunity cost in UTC
decision bandwidth. The benefit of encoding the symbol is not
unlocked until font makers add the symbol to their fonts, and
users update the fonts in their systems. There is a burden to font
makers to add the symbol, to shaping engines to handle the symbol,
to input methods to find a way to input that symbol, to users to
learn that this symbol exists, and so on. And many users will not
learn that the symbol exists, so will get no benefit. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Put down your Craftsman screwdriver, and learn to use the hammer
to drive nails.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:5cf1eecb.35b0.18b752276e7.Webtop.83@btinternet.com">
<div class="auto-created-dir-div" dir="auto" style="unicode-bidi:
embed;">
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>William Overington</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Saturday 28 October 2023</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
. --Jim DeLaHunt, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jdlh@jdlh.com">jdlh@jdlh.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://blog.jdlh.com/">http://blog.jdlh.com/</a> (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://jdlh.com/">http://jdlh.com/</a>)
multilingual websites consultant, Vancouver, B.C., Canada</pre>
</body>
</html>