WO> The ZERO WIDTH LIGATOR has, in my opinion, considerable merit. WO> However, it is a matter upon which the Unicode Technical Committee WO> has ruled
Oh, since you are defining PUA entities you can use it in your file formats nevertheless. WO> There is, in my opinion, far too much emphasis on making systems WO> either character based or markup as two distinct, rigidly WO> separated, categories. Actually, this is not taking place at all. These are just separate levels, this is part of the definition of markup. On the contrary, I consider it an excellent idea to define a basic level for the mere units of semiotic content [i.e. characters] and keep it separated from presentation or processing elements as far as possible. WO> I am not restricting the use of the Private Use Area Oh, but of course you are. Proposing a file format X with a given PUA allocation does restrict the use of the PUA for end users, as far as I understand. In formats for public text exchange, this is probably not a good idea, since users may need to process text with their own PUA encodings, such as non-Unicode scripts etc. that might collide with your codes. WO> I am not cluttering the Private Use Area. The Private Use Area is WO> provided in order that it may be used. I am using the Private Use WO> Area in accordance with the Unicode specification. Yes, but your own PUA allocation becomes overly complicated, and the number of codepoints used for fairly straightforward definitons is probably larger than necessary, while still probably not being general enough for real-world text presentation. These are just suggestions, however, and future conversation on this matter should be taken off list. WO> I feel that the existence of just the need to put those one or two WO> words in italics should not then force the issue of not being able WO> to use an essentially plain text format and instead having to go WO> for a less universally portable proprietary format that is only WO> accessible by people who are using one particular computer WO> platform using expensive add on software from a commercial WO> software company. Instead, you suggest a proprietary format ".eut"/".uto" by William Overington, the typographic features of which beyond mere plain text are dependent on having reader software that understands Courtyard Codes. WO> Publishing Courtyard Codes on the mailing list is not a waste of WO> space. Maybe the format in which they are published might be worth thinking over. A 14.292 byte e-mail that consists largely of a list of somewhat similar character codes could probably be presented in a somewhat more compact, reader-friendly manner. I further suggest that future similar specifications should rather be published on a web site somewhere and an URL be given in the e-mail, because probably more people would read the e-mail to the end :-) Philipp
