• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• To: <elharo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:19:25 -0000

> The set is large but finite. 

No, it's infinite. With ideographic languages, you can make up new symbols
just as cheerfully as Western languages make up new words. And we're
increasingly using ideographic languages in the West too - take a look at
the typical instruction leaflet for installing a washing machine. Most of
the characters it uses, like the one that says don't put your fingers in the
electrical socket, aren't in Unicode, but at the rate we're going they soon
will be. If we can have 2399;PRINT SCREEN SYMBOL then we can have anything.

I thought I'd take a look at 4DF5;HEXAGRAM FOR THE MARRYING MAIDEN

but it's very disappointing...

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>

• References:
  • Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • RE: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: Ten Years Later - XML 1.0 Fifth Edition?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>