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 rather arrogant.
>
> Michael and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but I back certainly him on this
> one. His statement is not arrogant. It is merely fact.
Facts are fine.
But perhaps the FAQ (if it doesn't have one already)
needs an entry with a Question along the lines of: "I've heard that
Adobe/Apple/CSUR/Linux/Microsoft/etc are already using certain parts of
the Private Use Area (PUA). Does that mean I can't/shouldn't use those
codepoints in my application?" .
> >To
> >many people, it seems like the UNICODE has taken in hand to define
> language
> >itself. The explanations, no matter how well founded, sound to ordinary
> >people like slick lawyers trying to cover up something baad with legalize.
>
> Like it or not, Unicode is the property of the Unicode Consortium and its
> members, not ordinary people. Clearly, ordinary people have an interest in
> its development, but it will benefit them only as the members of the
> Consortium deem to provide service to them. Now, this sounds cold and
> legal, and that's really not necessary. The members of the Consortium have
> it in their best interest to provide good service to ordinary people -
> that's how they earn their living.
Thanks for the diplomatic explanation.
> Personally, I think the PUA is a wonderful compromise. I know a linguist
These sorts of user-defined areas are a great idea. I'm reminded of an
old (1996) usage of such space in JIS X 0208 for Ethiopic:
http://www.abyssiniacybergateway.net/admas/jis/
Thomas Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
