> Might it not seem rather sensible of them to use the (SIL PUA) codes > F20E and F20F, generated by their keyboards and displayed with their > fonts?
In the computing world, there's always a trade-off between expressiveness and flexibility. They might not find it so sensible if they have to access their data anywhere else or have anyone else access their data. In any case, the vast majority of people working with cuniform would use a transliteration, likely even written on their paper files. To use real cuniform is a "because-I-can" thing, which I am not personally insensible, but doesn't get the highest priority bug fixes. > You may not think what Dean > and his colleagues were doing was very sensible, but it obviously made > sense to them, so what was the point of banning it? The point of banning it, if I understand it right, was that the old way didn't work right when viewing PUA data under all circumstances, and the only way was, as Dean put it, to uninstall fonts and rearrange codepoints. To enable the functionality in text editors, they had an unexpected side-effect of breaking PUA characters in file names. Which way to go is obvious to me. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
