Response to the comments of Mr Philipp Reichmuth. Thank you for your response to my posting of the Courtyard Codes.
>WO> U+F3A2 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT TWO CHARACTERS >WO> U+F3A3 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT THREE CHARACTERS >WO> U+F3A4 PLEASE LIGATE THE NEXT FOUR CHARACTERS > >While I don't think this discussion of various PUA allocations should >continue very further, it's probably a lot better to introduce the >already-discussed ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR in such a form that X ZWL Y >produces the XY ligature, X ZWL Y ZWL Z the XYZ ligature and so on. It >saves you a lot of hassle with longer ligatures. The ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR has, in my opinion, considerable merit. However, it is a matter upon which the Unicode Technical Committee has ruled and there is now an official method along the same lines using an extended definition of the ZERO WIDTH JOINER. > >WO> U+F3A8 PLEASE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM >WO> U+F3A9 PLEASE ALTERNATIVE SWASH THE NEXT PRINTABLE ITEM > >Does this belong in a character-based encoding system at all? This is >better solved by markup. If you go on defining your own file formats >already, do include some sensible markup system there, and you don't >have to clutter the PUA and restrict their use. What if you've got >more than 2 swash forms, BTW? > There is, in my opinion, far too much emphasis on making systems either character based or markup as two distinct, rigidly separated, categories. I feel that there is scope for a limited amount of markup within Unicode itself, not anything as comprehensive as HTML, but a small amount of general guidance codes, such as in these Courtyard Codes is, I feel, both reasonable and desirable. I am not cluttering the Private Use Area. The Private Use Area is provided in order that it may be used. I am using the Private Use Area in accordance with the Unicode specification. I am not restricting the use of the Private Use Area, I am simply asking end users whether they will please consider agreeing to something, entirely in accordance with the Unicode specification, chapter 13, section 13.5. No one is obliged to agree. If there are more than two swash forms, then, at the present state of the Courtyard Code collection, third and further swash forms would not be accessible. If readers do have any knowledge of cases where more than two swash forms for a particular character exist, then such information would be welcome. If there is a need, I will happily add facilities for accessing such swash characters. >WO> U+F3C0 PLAIN - ITALIC:=false; BOLD:=false; >WO> ... >WO> U+F3FF 192 POINT > >Again, markup is the better solution. And, to be honest, it's a bit of >a waste of space on the mailing list, don't you think? Markup may well be a better solution in some circumstances. However, consider please a situation where someone is seeking to have plain text where there is just one or two words in italics. I feel that the existence of just the need to put those one or two words in italics should not then force the issue of not being able to use an essentially plain text format and instead having to go for a less universally portable proprietary format that is only accessible by people who are using one particular computer platform using expensive add on software from a commercial software company. I feel that it is reasonable that people using widely accessible plain text formats should be able to use a few general formatting features, such as italics. Publishing Courtyard Codes on the mailing list is not a waste of space. The mailing list provides a direct email link to many people who are directly interested in Unicode and its applications and indirect access to anyone who chooses to look up the web based echo of the list. I feel that it is highly likely that many readers of the list will save a copy of that posting and file it somewhere, perhaps thinking out the implications for their own use of Unicode, whether they be a representative of a software package developer, a developer of founts for minority languages, an individual interested in transcribing historical documents, an author seeking to send a manuscript to a magazine editor or an author considering "publish on demand" publishing. The concept of the Courtyard Codes is potentially very far reaching for the future application of Unicode. It is possible that the classification codes and the formatting codes could be promoted to regular Unicode. There will need to be some debate about whether the power exists to promote the classification codes, yet I feel that that power does exist, there is, I feel, a clear difference between endorsing a particular allocation in the Private Use Area and providing a set of classification codes in regular Unicode: the former could not be endorsed by the Committees and any particular use of the classification codes could not be endorsed by the Committees yet I suggest that the non-endorsement rule would not be broken by regular Unicode having classification codes available in regular Unicode which end users could then use as they please, neither needing nor being able to obtain any official endorsement of any particular use of those classification codes. I feel that regular Unicode providing those classification codes would not be a breaching of the non-endorsement rule just as regular Unicode stating where the Private Use Areas are located or stating which surrogates can be used to access the Private Use Areas that are up in the mountains on planes 15 and 16 are not breaches of the non-endorsement rule. I feel that the rules are such that the Committees could promote all of the characters in the Courtyard Codes collection if they so choose. > >WO> I hope that these Courtyard Codes will be of interest to end users. > >I don't really think so. They don't offer very much that well-known >typesetting systems don't implement already in their own fashion. > The Courtyard Codes are not purported as offering facilities that cannot be achieved with well-known typesetting systems or with well-known proprietary file formats. The Courtyard Codes do offer the prospect of being able to have access to some of those facilities from within simpler, more generally available software packages such as might be available on the internet and on cover discs of magazines. Also, the Courtyard Codes may well have good application in education where, being part of a limited set, they might perhaps be used as a specification for a text displaying program that students are to write using Java as a coursework exercise. William Overington 25 May 2002
