Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Unicode) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Unicode) (bot |
||
Line 594:
ITALICTITLE referst to the name of a ''work'', ie the work itself (play, periodic, book). However, the Unicode standard is a ''standard'', not a book &tc. not even it's publication. The Standard is abstraction: the set of rules. It is a proper noun full stop. Key is, the article title notes the subject: the standard not the book. [[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 17:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Peter M. Brown}} -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 10:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
== Why no section about missing graphemes? ==
I don't know if it would be manageable, but Unicode clearly does not have all commonly used symbols. A simple example is the very commonly used 'slash marks' used to count. Most reading this will be familiar with the sequence /, //, ///, ////, and <s>////</s> with the crossmark (strike-through) diagonal (top left to bottom right) rather than horizontal. (This is typical in the USA, I understand European convention is slightly different). I request the editors to consider the addition of a list of missing (but documented) symbols.[[Special:Contributions/40.142.183.146|40.142.183.146]] ([[User talk:40.142.183.146|talk]]) 11:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
:Unicode's non-inclusion of tally marks is covered in {{slink|Tally marks|Unicode}}. I don't think it's a good idea to include it also in this article. That would open the door of listing every proposal that has not yet been accepted. [[User:Indefatigable|Indefatigable]] ([[User talk:Indefatigable|talk]]) 15:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
:I also oppose this idea. The set of unencoded symbols is open-ended and may exceed the number of encoded symbols. There would also be no way to determine ''which'' unencoded symbols merit mention. [[User:Drmccreedy|DRMcCreedy]] ([[User talk:Drmccreedy|talk]]) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
| |||