> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Peter Kirk > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:12 AM
> On 30/03/2004 16:30, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> But > what if users of certain other scripts e.g. RTL scripts want just a > handful of PUA characters with the properties they need? Why is > preference given to CJK? This sounds like bias to me even if > I was wrong > to call it western.
Oh, yes, Peter, you have a identified a clear bias against... against... against... uh, certain hypothetical situations?
Well, if you haven't read it between the lines, the clear bias is against RTL scripts and those scripts (including Indic by the way) which use combining characters. There is no way currently (with the default properties) to support PUA characters relating to such scripts, although there is for western and CJK scripts.
...
> they were supposed to use the PUA at their own risk.
Well, gee, somebody understands that principle so clearly WHEN IT APPLIES TO SOMEONE ELSE.
Yes, Ken! Read the context and don't snip it. He is the one who said (correctly) that what I get when I use the PUA must be at my own risk, but, I quote:
Somebody else is *already* using that section of the PUA for something else. Now they have an interoperability problem...Why is their interoperability problem something which the UTC cares about, when mine isn't? Why doesn't the "use at your own risk" principle apply to them just as much as to me?
...If you want me to quit whining, quit asking me to do things which you and I know very well are a waste of time. System software vendors are not going to do what I want, and we all know that very well. But I have a real requirement. The UTC has the power to meet my requirement, and to do so rather simply. I am asking them to meet it.
No. The *only* way to maintain compatibility between your applications and the system software is to ensure that your applications only do things that are supported by the system software. If you want RTL PUA, ask your system software vendor. Here, you're just whining into the wind.
Actually my current requirement is not so much for RTL PUA as for PUA variation selectors and/or combining characters which are default ignorable. RTL PUA is not so much of a problem, because at least in principle it should be possible to make PUA characters RTL by enclosing them in RLO ... PDF. I am not sure how well this is actually supported by system software. My current requirement could be met by defining a probably quite small set of PUA combining characters (with combining class zero) which would be default ignorable. For an example of why this might be useful, see my posting today to the Unicode Hebrew list.
/|/|ike
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
