At 13:52 +0200 2001-04-26, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>- Some living languages may experiment for years with a certain script,
>before the community decides that that is their way, and eventually knock at
>Unicode's door.
Which for instance we plan to do with Blissymbolics and SignWriting.
--
Micha
Wm Seán Glen asked:
Couldn't one just embed the glyphs that aren't specified by Unicode along
with the text?
end quote
William Overton responded:
However, if one is using a plain unicode text file then one could not do
that embedding. The problem that then arises is that if one uses a code
s
On 04/26/2001 06:14:21 PM "William Overington" wrote:
>Peter Constable asks "If I write "chat", do you know what I mean?".
>
>Hmm, let me ponder! :-)
>
>Is it possible that you are referring to the answer that an Australian
>numismatist might give if asked what is the bird on the reverse of a
B
Wm Seán Glen asked:
Couldn't one just embed the glyphs that aren't specified by Unicode along
with the text?
end quote
Yes one could, in a file such as a Word document file where the format of
the Word file can handle the embedding of illustrations.
However, if one is using a plain unicode tex
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> OK. But you won't implement Devanagari rendering with 32 glyphs...
If you want to render Devanagari, please use some other mechanisms, not
simple character streams. Change the internals to 32-bit, or keep other
things with the codepoints. Yes, almos
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Surrogating the noncharacters in the FDD0..FDEF range works
> for internally 16-bit apps.
OK. But you won't implement Devanagari rendering with 32 glyphs...
At the risk of being the victim of the first digital autodafé, I will add
that codes DC00..DFFF (Low Surrogate)
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>
> > >A. Intentional private use for non-exchanged data [...]
> >
> I have some objection. One should not use PUA codes for
> internal purposes [...]
> If only a few internal ones needed, use noncharacters like the ones
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> >A. Intentional private use for non-exchanged data [...]
>
> I agree that little or no coordination is needed for case A. If PUA
> codepoints remain totally internal to an application, there is going to be
> no interchange problem at all, as fa
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> As a second thought, using codes higher than 0x0FFF is even safer,
> because it also accounts for the fact that, theoretically, ISO 10646 uses 31
> bits.
But this was the Unicode mailing list ;)
> Of course, all this is only possible for appli
Michael (michka) Kaplan wrote:
> I think the biggest problem with such a system is that it
> encourages people to use a PUA pseudo-encoding rather
> than do the work to encode a new script if it needs to
> be encoded. It also encourages private use to become more
> like semi-private use, and this
Peter Constable wrote:
It seems to me that you are still missing the point I'm making.
end quote
Peter Constable then quoted part of a sentence that I had written.
For example, in everyday use of the English language, if I write the word
horse then you have a knowledge of what that word means
William:
It seems to me that you are still missing the point I'm making.
>For example, in everyday use of the English language, if I write the word
>horse then you have a knowledge of what that word means
That assumes a prior agreement that we're speaking English. In context, you
may be able
Couldn't one just embed the glyphs that aren't specified by Unicode along
with the text?
Wm Seán Glen
From: William Overington
Sent: Wednesday, 25 April, 2001 3:40
Subject: Re: On the possibility of guidance code points for the
Private Use Area
I wrote previousl
> From: Eric Muller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
>
> > Currently, when sending email or
> > interpreting HTML, the content is tagged for its encoding.
> Wouldn't PUA
> > users simply use their own tag (say, PUA-mike-1) instead of
> UTF-8? Am I
> > missing something?
I wrote previously:
I am not suggesting that a piece of software trying to read a plain unicode
text document would need to look things up at a registry nor then access
the internet. Such a piece of software would just work using a local file.
Peter Constable asked:
How do you get that local f
Tim Partridge and Marco Cimarosti both suggested the use of a new plane 14
tag character.
Marco wrote:
The wild idea is to add a tag prefix for specifying "PUA semantics" in plain
text:
* U-0E0002 (PUA INTERPRETATION TAG)
This prefix would be followed by a sequence of tag characters
(U-0E0020.
On 04/24/2001 07:54:23 PM "William Overington" wrote:
>Would use of the sequence U+E880,U+E880,U+E880 help give the receiving
>software a good idea that guidance code points were in use?
>
>It would not be an absolute guarantee, but it would be an unlikely per
>accidens combination to be receive
On 04/25/2001 02:18:40 AM Michael Kaplan wrote:
>I think the biggest problem with such a system is that it encourages
people
>to use a PUA pseudo-encoding rather than do the work to encode a new
script
>if it needs to be encoded. It also encourages private use to become more
>like semi-private u
>Of course, there's also the problem of religious opposition to Plane 14
tags.
> The language tag U+E0001 was DOA (deprecated on arrival), and judging
from
>Peter Constable's "Gack!!!" there is a genuine contempt among some for the
>entire concept of plain-text tags (i.e. it's not just an objecti
William:
>Kenneth Whistler wrote as follows in response:
>
>quote
>
>This is a quibble about the usage of the terms "private" and "public"...
>end quote
>
>I respond as follows:
>
>Well, I feel that it is not a quibble. The point that I was seeking to
make
>is that the Unicode Consortium calls
"Ayers, Mike" wrote:
> Currently, when sending email or
> interpreting HTML, the content is tagged for its encoding. Wouldn't PUA
> users simply use their own tag (say, PUA-mike-1) instead of UTF-8? Am I
> missing something?
What we are talking about is the character collection, not the encod
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> A good point. A possible workaround would be a new plane-14
> tag character.
I don't see this as a good solution. This is not because of any
objection to the plane 14 characters, but because I think the problem can be
handled we
At 11:18 -0700 2001-04-24, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
>I think the biggest problem with such a system is that it encourages people
>to use a PUA pseudo-encoding rather than do the work to encode a new script
>if it needs to be encoded.
Indeed.
>It also encourages private use to become mor
From: "Marco Cimarosti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Probably, plane-14 tags should never have been there. But, once the
chicken
> is dead, the only thing left to do is having chicken for dinner... So why
> not using those tags for more services, provided that there is no disturb
to
> (the majority of) a
Doug Ewell wrote:
> > plane-14 tag characters
>
> I liked the idea at first, but there's a problem: the use of
> privately constructed PUA registries turns the PUA into a
> kind of ISO IR, just the sort of thing Unicode worked so
> hard to avoid.
Yes, and that will effectively be avoided for *e
In a message dated 2001-04-24 5:01:23 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> This is a quibble about the usage of the terms "private" and "public".
> Any shared private use is by definition public. And of course, if you
> publish private usage of code points and encourage others t
Tim Partridge and Marco Cimarosti asynchronously wrote:
> plane-14 tag characters
I liked the idea at first, but there's a problem: the use of privately
constructed PUA registries turns the PUA into a kind of ISO IR, just the sort
of thing Unicode worked so hard to avoid. Plus, neither the Un
Tim Partridge wrote:
> A good point. A possible workaround would be a new plane-14
> tag character.
Sorry, I received this only after I proposed the same thing. Of course Tim
wins the lot, as demonstrated by the e-mails time stamps.
> But as Ken points out the world isn't complex enough yet to
Doug Ewell wrote
>Any proposed private-use registries would be just as private in nature as a
single PUA character.
Yes, certainly. I am not suggesting that private use registries would have
any official unicode status, rather that they might be a convenient
self-help facility for the user comm
>As a corollary, the act of publishing material on this list is tantamount
>to unrestricted publication.
>
On the wider implications of your claimed corollary using the phrase
"unrestricted publication" I feel that I must contradict you, for it is not,
in my opinion, a corollary of what Sarasvati
Kenneth Whistler wrote as follows:
quote
Michael Everson and Doug Ewell already pointed out that neither the
UTC nor SC2/WG2 is going to endorse any standard interpretation of
any code points in the private use areas -- including any proposal
to specify certain code points as "guidance code poin
Peter Constable wrote:
The biggest flaw, which thoroughly
undermines the ability of this system to work, is that your software has no
way to actually know whether I'm following these conventions or not.
Effectively, you're still dependent upon individual agreement between users
as to the meaning
On 04/24/2001 06:50:00 AM Tim Partridge wrote:
>> Effectively, you're still dependent upon individual agreement between
users
>> as to the meaning of PUA codepoints.
>
>A good point. A possible workaround would be a new plane-14 tag character.
Gack!!!
[Just offering my initial reaction. I'm no
Peter Constable wrote:
> With or without the conventions and registry William is
> suggesting, the real issue still isn't addressed: in
> what form do I communicate to you what my PUA
> codepoints mean. [...]
> I'd rather just provide you with a database containing
> the semantics of my PUA codep
Hear, hear,
At 05:43 PM 4/23/01 -0400, Sarasvati wrote:
>Dear Subscribers --
>
>This mail list is a public free-for-all with uncontrolled distribution.
As a corollary, the act of publishing material on this list is tantamount
to unrestricted publication. If you mail out something that should be
Peter recently said:
> William is certainly touching on an important issue: how does your software
> know how to interpret my PUA codepoints. I commend him for thinking about
> the issue, and his thinking outside the box. I don't think I or SIL would
> buy into his suggestion, however. The bigges
Sarasvati wrote:
> Dear Subscribers --
>
> Eric Muller just distributed a nice document, "Formalizing the
> Unicode Private Use Area". This document is marked: "Adobe
> Systems Inc. Confidential. Copyright (c) 2001 Adobe Systems Inc."
> While I realize that is probably merely some standard discl
Dear Subscribers --
Eric Muller just distributed a nice document, "Formalizing the
Unicode Private Use Area". This document is marked: "Adobe
Systems Inc. Confidential. Copyright (c) 2001 Adobe Systems Inc."
While I realize that is probably merely some standard disclaimer or
template footer, I t
I have attached a proposal to describe the meaning of PUA characters in a
document. The idea is that this description would be to the characters as the
DTD is to the XML elements (but it also applies to non-XML documents).
Eric.
Title: Formalizing the Unicode Private Use Area
Table of Content1.
On 04/24/2001 02:10:00 AM Rick McGowan wrote:
>But of course, as Michael points out:
>
>> all users are free to use any position in the PUA
For which reason software vendors will be doing their users a service by
- refraining from assuming any proprietary PUA semantics as much as
possible (you
Michael Everson and Doug Ewell already pointed out that neither the
UTC nor SC2/WG2 is going to endorse any standard interpretation of
any code points in the private use areas -- including any proposal
to specify certain code points as "guidance code points" for alternate
registries of private usa
>Meanings to the code positions in the Private Use area shall not be
assigned.
>
>WG2 and UTC are adamant about this.
If I understand him correctly, William's not suggesting that UTC or WG2
assign meanings to PUA codepoints. Rather, he's talking about a
non-UTC/WG2-sanctioned agreement among *us
Doug Ewell quoted:
>"By convention, the Private Use Area is divided into a Corporate Use subarea,
>starting at U+F8FF and extending downward in values, and an End User subarea,
>starting at U+E000 and extending upward."
Then Michael Everson wrote:
> This has nothing to do with ISO/IEC 10646.
>
At 11:30 -0400 2001-04-23, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You should be aware that the Unicode Standard does state the following about
>the PUA (TUS 3.0, p. 323):
>
>"By convention, the Private Use Area is divided into a Corporate Use subarea,
>starting at U+F8FF and extending downward in values, and
In a message dated 2001-04-23 7:09:31 Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I therefore put forward for discussion a suggestion of the possibility of
> guidance code points for the private use area. I do this knowing that it
> cannot ever be endorsed by the Unicode Consortium.
William:
Meanings to the code positions in the Private Use area shall not be assigned.
WG2 and UTC are adamant about this.
Best regards,
--
Michael Everson ** Everson Gunn Teoranta ** http://www.egt.ie
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Mob +353 86 807 9169
A software program encountering in a file of plain unicode text a unicode
character in the private use area from U+E000 to U+F8FF needs to make a
decision as to what do about that character.
This may well present a problem.
A software program such as a wordprocessing package that uses a higher l
47 matches
Mail list logo
