James Kass scripsit: > Once a meaning like > "INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR" has been assigned to > a code point, any application which chooses to use that code > point for any other purpose would be at fault.
But a purely nominal one, since any use of these three codepoints should be behind the firewall of the application. > I understand that having common internal use code points might > be considered handy from an implementer's point of view, but > suggest that such conventions should be shared among implementers > only, and should not be enshrined in a character encoding standard. I doubt you will see any more such things. BTW, note that FFFC has the same internal-only property. > Because it seems to be an oxymoron. If it has a specific semantic > meaning, then it should be possible to store and exchange it > without any loss of meaning. For what seemed to them good and sufficient reasons, the UTC did not do this: they allocated the points but proscribed them from use in interchange. Had they thought of the permanent non-character block at the time, they probably would not have done this. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
