Michael Everson wrote:
> Any candidate for encoding has to meet certain criteria. Like Klingon
> didn't. One of those criteria would be "doable". Another would be
> "meets user requirements". A priori rejection of things makes me
> nervous, though.
Yeah. I agree that a priori rejection of Labanotation, or any other of
various symbolic notations, might be imprudent. But these are cases where
the burden of proof -- that a character-based encoding is doable and useful
to the user community -- should be squarely on the proposers.
So far, nobody has even proposed Labanotation nor done anything near the
analysis and inventory that would be required to really engage in a
discussion of suitability for character encoding. Same applies to other
symbologies, like chemical notation, for that matter.
Rick
