On 4/5/2017 2:25 PM, Rebecca T wrote:
> If there's a credible need to convert files between Unicode-based
systems and
> those using PETSCII
There is! It’s called “sharing textual information” and it’s how our
society
functions. Can we afford to blithely abandon data from the best selling
computer in history [1] because nobody cared to standardize its?
There's no need for inflammatory rhetoric.
If you believe there is a credible need, then it should be easy to
document that as part of a proposal.
Nothing gets decided by the UTC unless there's a proposal on the table.
A./
> A similar scenario might exist if C64 emulators run on Unicode-based
systesm
> were a widespread phenomenon
They do! Even last month, there was a PETSCII directory-art contest. [2]
A bit off-topic, but:
As time goes on, “not in widespread use” will become a flimsier and
flimsier
argument against inclusion — why isn’t there a larger community of PETSCII
enthusaists? Partially because the only way to share PETSCII is
through images!
The consortium (passively or actively) prevents communication through
exclusion
and then uses the lack of communication as a justification against
inclusion —
it’s a poor, tautological argument, and it won’t serve the consortium
long-term.
Simply put, we need new criteria for inclusion — as the vast majority
of the
world’s systems (from written communication in text messages to the
manuscripts
of all new books) are already Unicode-based, we can no longer rely on a
character’s existing presence outside of Unicode as a signal to warrent
inclusion; we must weigh a character’s merits and usability on its
own. (does
it fill a gap in communication? Will it be used?)
[1]:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/05/09/commodore.64.reborn/
[2]: http://csdb.dk/event/?id=2558
