This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 75 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 75 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Matthew Flatt wrote: > My impression of the editors: we're not going to standardize anything > less than a specific set of characters. There is a consensus that the > current weak standard causes too many portability problems, and that > the solution is to pin down precisely the meaning of "character". Hmmm. If the goal is portability, I see your point. But for most implementations Unicode is still pretty experimental; I'd have preferred to relax rather than tighten the standard, in order to allow experimentation, (indeed, in order to allow unicode at all) and then tighten it later. Are you really going to be okay with banning scheme from tiny environments? One of the language's strengths has always been that it is a lisp small and simple enough to embed in a larger application or to run on small hardware. Unicode and its gargantuan tables will change all that. Hmmm, then again, folk are using text editors now that occupy hundreds of megabytes; who'd have believed such things would ever be made, just a few years ago? Maybe software bloat allows us to require Unicode, with its tables and all, and remain svelte-looking by comparison to the general trend. Bear