3 ms·
I agree, however given the limited scope of dingbats symbols and the (at the time) unlikeliness that it would grow significantly, I can understand the different
by Zikes 11y ago
I agree, however given the limited scope of dingbats symbols and the (at the time) unlikeliness that it would grow significantly, I can understand the different reactions. Not to mention there weren't many forums for the general populace to disagree back in 1991.
- masklinn 11y agoBah, bullshit I say, the argle bargle crowd didn't make a noise when Unicode 4 added support for the fucking shavian alphabet either, which lest you be confused is not an ancient language but a synthetic phonetic alternative english alphabet invented in the 60s. > given the limited scope of dingbats symbols There is no limited scope, dingbats is just stuff that's neither numbers nor "letters".