I suggest that you create a proposal for the UTC so that it can go on record; I suspect it will get a favorable reception.
Mark <https://google.com/+MarkDavis> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> > wrote: > > > If Unicode Inc. chooses to impose a moratorium on discussing this > > development in information technology then Unicode Inc. should say so > > officially and post a policy document and not have this unfair > > imposition of a moratorium by a person or persons unknown. > > Finally, something on which William and I can agree. > > I absolutely agree that UTC -- the technical committee, not the > corporation -- should issue a formal statement expressing its position > as to: > > 1. Generally, whether novel and untested concepts, particularly those > for which a sizable body of popular support has not been established, > are viewed by UTC as suitable and appropriate candidates for encoding in > the Unicode Standard, on the basis of their perceived future usefulness. > (I believe this statement has been made already; if so, a reference that > can be easily cited would serve the purpose.) > > 2. Specifically, whether the particular concept that William proposes, > to encode entities that are not characters into the Unicode Standard on > the basis of their perceived future usefulness, is viewed by UTC as > being suitable for and appropriate to the standard. > > Whichever position is taken by this statement, pro or con, this list > should honor it. > > > Also, it is not a worn-out topic. It is a wonderful possibility for > > the future. > > -- > Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸 > > >
