Strange, has several meanings, not all positive. Perhaps the term
outlier is less ambiguous. One definition is unfamiliar, some outliers
over time become widespread in use, become famliar we no longer consider
them strange, but as they are still different are still outliers. CJK is
a
Well, no, in this case "strange" means strange, as Ken Lunde notes. I'm
just pointing to his list, because it pulls together quite a few Han
characters that *also* have dubious cases for encoding.
Or you could turn the argument around, I suppose, and note that just
because the hieroglyph for
Dear Ken
An interesting comparison, if strange means dubious, then the name
kstrange should be changed or some of the content removed because many
of the characters in the set are not dubious in the least.
Regards
John
On 2020-02-14 04:08, Ken Whistler via Unicode wrote:
You want
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 20:15:07 +
Shawn Steele via Unicode wrote:
> I confess that even though I know nothing about Hieroglyphs, that I
> find it fascinating that such a thoroughly dead script might still be
> living in some way, even if it's only a little bit.
Plenty of people have learnt how
On 2/12/2020 3:26 PM, Shawn Steele via
Unicode wrote:
From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used
I'm not opposed to a sub-bloc for "Modern Hieroglyphs"
I confess that even though I know nothing about Hieroglyphs, that I find it
fascinating that such a thoroughly dead script might still be living in some
way, even if it's only a little bit.
-Shawn
-Original Message-
From:
You want "dubious"?!
You should see the hundreds of strange characters already encoded in the
CJK *Unified* Ideographs blocks, as recently documented in great detail
by Ken Lunde:
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2020/20059-unihan-kstrange-update.pdf
Compared to many of those, a hieroglyph of a
Those characters could also be put into another block for the same script
similar to how dubious characters in CJK are included by placing them into
"CJK Compatibility Ideographs" for round trip compatibility with source
encoding.
在 2020年2月14日週五 03:35，Richard Wordingham via Unicode
寫道：
> On
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:18:40 +0100
Hans Åberg via Unicode wrote:
> > On 13 Feb 2020, at 00:26, Shawn Steele
> > wrote:
> >> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character
> >> is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
> >
> > That bar, to me, seems too
Hans Åberg >>> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the
character is in use or have had use, it should be included somehow.
Shawn Steele >> That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only
used briefly or in a private context that doesn;t really require
encoding.
Hans
Le 12/02/2020 à 23:30, Michel Suignard a écrit :
Interesting that a single character is creating so much feedback, but
it is not the first time.
Extrapolating from my own case, I guess it’s because hieroglyphs have a
strong cultural significance — especially to people following unicode
> On 13 Feb 2020, at 00:26, Shawn Steele wrote:
>
>> From the point of view of Unicode, it is simpler: If the character is in use
>> or have had use, it should be included somehow.
>
> That bar, to me, seems too low. Many things are only used briefly or in a
> private context that doesn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
