On 19 September 2011 17:06, Andrew West andrewcwest@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 September 2011 16:58, Thomas Dalton
innherently beneficial to the public. That's why "In Re Shaw" isn't applicable to our application in the slightest. That case is about research into a new alphabet and I think most people would agree that the proposed research isn't likely to benefit the public (since it's a ridiculous proposal that will never actually be implemented in a million years).
Um, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shavian_alphabet
and implemented in Unicode in 2003:
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.0.0/ch13.pdf#G17013
Being implemented in Unicode isn't really what I had in mind...