Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh at google dot com> wrote: >> I was specifically, and only, referring to a character proposal—any >> proposal—being dubbed "urgent" on the basis that a font hack has been >> identified. > > Just look what happened when the Japanese did their own font/character > set hack. The backslash/yen problem is still with us, to this day...
Again, I am not suggesting that such characters not be encoded, only that the presence of font hacks not be used as a primary driver of "urgency." Is is desirable to release a new minor version of Unicode with ONE new character because someone distributes a hacked font? I'm sure that if Michael were to develop and distribute a font that replaced Latin-1 glyphs with Unifon glyphs, that would not single-handedly drive the urgency of encoding Unifon. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell
