Re: current idea

[Jungshik Shin <jshin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4 Nov 2001, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> By author:    David Starner <dstarner98@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> In newsgroup: linux.utf8
> >
> > > It's easy to chew up planes if you have to do something systematic...
> >
> > It can't be "idiosyncratic, personal, novel, rarely exchanged, or
> > private-use", and it can't be a "[g]raphology unreleated to text".
> > Within those restrictions, and the fact that they won't add hundreds of
> > thousands of characters without very very good reason, what's going to
> > be added to Unicode to take up 700 thousand characters?
> >
>
> That may be true now, but personally, I wouldn't bet on it.  One of
> the strengths of Unicode as opposed to legacy encodings is that it can
> expand to service new needs, which I think was made eminently clear
> with the introduction of the Euro symbol.
>
> All I'm saying is don't take too much for granted.

  Well, this is a recurrent topic in Unicode mailing list. And, one
of Unicode/10646 guru Kenneth Whistler has the following to say recently
(he has written about this many times before with 'hard' numbers):

  Jungshik Shin


----------------Cut----------Here---------------------------