On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 10:16:11 PM UTC+5:30, Sam Raker wrote: > I'm 100% in favor of expanding Unicode until the sun goes dark. Doing so > helps solve the problems affecting speakers of "underserved" > languages--access and language preservation. Speakers of Mongolian, Cherokee, > Georgian, etc. all deserve to be able to interact with technology in their > native languages as much as we speakers of ASCII-friendly languages do. > Unicode support also makes writing papers on, dictionaries of, and new texts > in such languages much easier, which helps the fight against language > extinction, which is a sadly pressing issue.
Agreed -- Correcting the inequities caused by ASCII-bias is a good thing. In fact the whole point of my post was to say just that by carving out and focussing on a 'universal' subset of unicode that is considerably larger than ASCII but smaller than unicode, we stand to reduce ASCII-bias. As also other posts like http://blog.languager.org/2014/04/unicoded-python.html http://blog.languager.org/2014/05/unicode-in-haskell-source.html However my example listed > > * Egyptian hieroglyphs > > * Cuneiform > > * Shavian > > * Deseret > > * Mahjong > > * Klingon Ok Chris has corrected me re. Klingon-in-unicode. So lets drop that. Of the others which do you thing is in 'underserved' category? More generally which of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_%28Unicode%29#Supplementary_Multilingual_Plane are underserved? -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
