>The proposal is a non-starter. There isn't even a glimmer of serious >interest here, and it's rather pointless to continue this discussion. >
Well, I have been reading this thread with serious interest, trying to weigh even-handedly the arguments. I can see that there is a potential need in some circumstances. For example, if one is producing an on the fly display showing the hexadecimal expression of colours as one drifts a mouse over a picture. The glyphs could be defined to all be the same width without needing to use a monospaced fount. Hexadecimal with the usual code points can go "in and out" as the hexadecimal number changes. In a typical modern Western fount, all digits 0 to 9 are on the same width body. A set of ten such characters could all be on the same width bodies as each other and as digits. They could also be potentially helpful in documents such as code point tables where both decimal and hexadecimal numbers are included in the same document. I have a suggestion. As some readers may know I am defining some sets of code point assignments within the Private Use Area. http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/golden.htm Also, I use a part of the Private Use Area for experiments. That area is U+E7C0 through to U+E7FF. In the interests of fairness I suggest that on an experimental basis that U+E7D0 through to U+E7DF be used to try out Mr Finch's idea, so as to give him and anyone else who would like to try the idea out a fair chance to do so in a Unicode compatible environment. Being aware of the matter raised in the posts by Avarangal, the glyphs are left "to float" shall we say. In the light of a few interested people trying out Mr Finch's ideas, then either a proposal for regular Unicode could be made or I could make a permanent assignment to the U+E6.. block in my collection of code points if that would be regarded as serving a useful purpose. My reason for not doing that straightaway at this time is not because of seeking to create a barrier to doing so, but because it may perhaps be felt that a permanent non-exclusive Private Use Area allocation would be of no usefulness for this particular set of characters and because in view of the point raised by Avarangal it may be that two sets of 16 characters are needed or maybe just one set or that some other coding arrangement would need to be made, I am unsure, so I leave the matter open for experiment and experience to provide a guide. I do feel though that Mr Finch should be helped to try out his idea so that whether it is an idea worth pursuing may be established by scientific enquiry. William Overington 21 June 2002
