<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2024-08-15 5:48, Doug Ewell via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR03MB6598F421730BACC346AA3B08CA802@SJ0PR03MB6598.namprd03.prod.outlook.com"><span
style="white-space: pre-wrap">No proposal to encode any number of characters, one or a thousand, ever benefits from the argument that “there is plenty of space in Unicode.” Every proposal is accepted or rejected on its own merits. And that is as it should be.</span></blockquote>
<p>But I would also add: each character has huge cost which should
be carried with to the final version of Unicode.</p>
<p>A character is nor just like a possibly nearly hidden page of
Wikipedia with low cost (just database space/backups): every
program must scan the list (so it must be saved in the system, and
possibly many programs have own list, e.g. a browser may support
more recent database compared other programs). So each phone must
have at lease one copy, so also each computer and virtual machine.
But also it add complexity to read the database.<br>
</p>
<p>But also on font side. A character without a representation is
not very useful (but for scholars, so ancient language may be ok).
And that has a huge costs, also just to select what to model and
what not.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2024-08-14 21:53, ag disroot via
Unicode wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:ccdafa8e-071e-43ed-bd3e-82e59471ca33@disroot.org">
<pre>Characters like the box drawing characters would never be accepted these
days. As in if it wouldn't be in unicode already and if old standards
wouldntve added it, it would never be accepted bc it graphic by nature
and you should use a higher level protocol for that</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Not just that, but (again fonts): many fonts (I think also some
default one) which support the technical block of Unicode are not
much useable. Alignment is not where it should, etc. For me that
proof that such block is not really used, and so nobody care (but
just to have a glyph).</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>And I would re-iterate: Unicode should requires a font for each
new glyphs (and with a "free license", so it could be easier to
derive characters). Not only it can show that people will invest
on such character, but as I see in some discussion: I think it
will reduce bugs in the Unicode Character Database (real example
helps experts of the character to find bugs on character
property).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>giacomo<br>
</p>
<p></p>
</body>
</html>