Re: Unicode cuteness

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/15/10 11:23 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
> 
> For selfdescribing glyphs, is the following somewhat defensive approach
> sensible, or should 𝄞 be equivalent to the whole \clef "G" sequence?
> 
> If the latter, it would need modifying the parser, right?  That would
> have the advantage that note lengths like 𝅘𝅥𝅰 could also be employed,
> pitches written like B𝄫, rests including length as 𝄽, and other
> niceties.
> 

I'm not a big fan of moving in this direction; your emails with unicode
included don't render properly on my email client.

I much prefer the ascii text (with UTF-8 for accented characters, when
necessary) approach.  It makes files easily readable on my system.

But I wouldn't oppose someone who wanted to move in that direction, as long
as it didn't ruin my perfectly good text interface.

Thanks,

Carl