On 02/25/2001 05:16:15 AM "William Overington" wrote:
[snip]
Yet suppose that some organization were to have "Encode Your Character
Here
For Free" with light moderation only and openly stated that the way that
the
organization planned to make a profit were to encode all of the characters
At 07:21 -0800 2001-02-26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like it or not, Unicode is the property of the Unicode Consortium and its
members, not ordinary people.
The character set is also the property of the International
Organization for Standardization.
Personally, I think the PUA is a wonderful
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 02/25/2001 08:01:38 PM "Joel Rees" wrote:
I know this has been hashed over time and time again, and the answer has
been handed down as if by edict time and again, but _your_ attitude as
expressed below is taken by many who are not involved as
On 02/25/2001 08:01:38 PM "Joel Rees" wrote:
Michael,
I know this has been hashed over time and time again, and the answer has
been handed down as if by edict time and again, but _your_ attitude as
expressed below is taken by many who are not involved as rather arrogant.
Michael and I don't
In the thread "fictional scripts revisted" Kenneth Whistler wrote as
follows.
quote
In other words, unless someone manages to wrest the standard away
from the two committees and puts up a public website with an
"Encode Your Character Here For Free and Enter Our Sweepstakes!"
interface, I'm not
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, William Overington wrote:
[reams on the notion that the forces of glyph encoding may overwhelm
the defenders of Unicode.]
Well yes, people are free to tunnel anything they like in the PUA and
assuming their Unicode applications are willing to allow much larger
datafields
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, William Overington wrote:
I find the Private Use Areas of great interest and a valuable resource.
However, use of the private use characters requires agreement between users
if private use characters are to be used for exchanging information between
people. Already
At 10:15 -0800 2001-02-25, Thomas Chan wrote:
On the other hand, apparently neither CSUR nor you were aware of (or
chose to ignore) the clashes with the mappings between the PUA and legacy
CJK encodings and character sets, which [the mappings] have already been
implemented for 5+ years now on
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, Michael Everson wrote:
At 10:15 -0800 2001-02-25, Thomas Chan wrote:
On the other hand, apparently neither CSUR nor you were aware of (or
chose to ignore) the clashes with the mappings between the PUA and legacy
CJK encodings and character sets, which [the mappings] have
William Overington asked...
I also remember reading some time ago about a project called Junicode that
produced a font using some characters in the private use area. Are these
private character uses different from the uses in the ConScript registry and
likely either to cause clashes or
4:15 AM
Subject: Re: Possibilities of future expansion (from Perception etc thread
At 10:15 -0800 2001-02-25, Thomas Chan wrote:
On the other hand, apparently neither CSUR nor you were aware of (or
chose to ignore) the clashes with the mappings between the PUA and legacy
CJK encodings and c
11 matches
Mail list logo
