On 06/21/2002 05:07:53 AM "William Overington" wrote:
>In the light of a few interested people trying out Mr Finch's ideas, then >either a proposal for regular Unicode could be made Not worth the effort since it has already been rejected. 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. Understand that that would be nothing more than an agreement between you and Mr. Finch (assuming he'd agree with you), and perhaps a few other eccentric individuals. (Yes, encoding separate hex digits is eccentric.) >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. First, Mr. Finch doesn't need you to reserve PUA codepoints in order for him to do some scientific inquiry. He can just write whatever code he wants that implements whatever PUA codepoints he wants to choose. Secondly, this is not a matter of pure scientific enquiry. It has to do with practical realities, and there have already been enough sound arguments made to show that the proposal is a non-starter. In purely theoretical terms, would an implemntation be possible? Yes. I don't think it takes much of a scientific research endeavour to realise that. But the point is that the proposal in neither practical nor necessary. (And your example of a potential need was totally unconvincing -- if someone is dragging their mouse across a graphic, they won't be able to tell whether strings that are not visible simultaneously or vertically aligned use monospaced glyphs, nor are they likely to care.) - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
