D. Starner wrote: > > "Unicode" has never written any platform software, so it > > could hardly have made the PUA "too hard to use". > > There's two private use planes. That's more than enough area > to make some of it RTL and some of it combining, and so on for > the major patterns of properties.
Sorry, but this is just a nonstarter. It is not a robust or extensible way to deal with properties for PUA characters. Rick's example of how you write system support for generalized definition of PUA character properties *via* the implementation makes much more sense to me that having the UTC futz around with trying to provide some partition of properties in the PUA. That in addition to the fact that it is manifestly unlikely that the UTC is going to go for anything like such a proposal. > It would be > nice if PUA support was the same, instead of having to provide APIs to > change properties for many basic usages. Work it out. Any proposal to assign property ranges into the PUA would run up on the rocks of all the details. And *then* it would meet a stonewall in the UTC. And *then* it would meet another stonewall in SC2. Quit banging your head against the walls and look for alternatives more likely to lead somewhere. > > If there is a real need for exchanging > > some bunch of symbols, people should be trying to standardize them, not > > standardize ways of *not* standardizing them. > > For one, there's scripts like Klingon and the Tolkien scripts that get > no respect. The Klingon so-called "script" deserves no respect (as opposed to the Klingon language, which does). The Tolkien scripts are another story entirely, because they are well-structure con-scripts. And Tengwar and Cirth get as much respect in the Roadmap as Uighur, Landa, Chola, Mende, or any number of other scripts deserving eventual encoding. > Also, considering some of the changes and problems with > scripts like Mongolian and Khmer, it'd be nice to have a PUA encoding > with a serious body of texts encoded before committing Unicode to one > particular encoding. > > Is the PUA only for "real need"s? Should play scripts be encoded as > ASCII, or should there be some way to get it right, even if only > one person in the world is going to use it? Take Open Office. Take the IUC. Those are open source. Start hacking. --Ken
