At 01:45 PM 1/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>The limitation of characters to those that are in current use is related >>in large part to the code point limitations > > >What limitations? We have over a million codepoints to play with. >There is plenty of room. I've always been under the impression that one of the original goals of the Unicode effort was to do away with he sort of multi-width encodings we are all too familiar with (EUC, JIS, SJIS, etc.). this was to be accomplished by using a fixed width encoding. In my mind, everything other than that in order to increase space (but not necessarily to save bandwidth) is a kluge, and a compromise, because it means code still has to be aware of the details of the the encoding scheme. I do not dispute that with the kluges/compromises, there is plenty of room. >>There are plenty of characters which exist in the literature that are not >>ended in Unicode, and in fact are specifically excluded: those of written >>but dead languages. > > >They are not only not excluded, they are included: Runic and Deseret >are just the beginning. There are many pending proposals for things >like hieroglyphs and cuneiform. Now that there are kluges that allow for extra room. But wasn't it not always the case historically speaking that these languages were, shall we say, less than welcome?
