PUA is not structured and not officially programmable to accommodate numerous code pages.
Take the ISO 8859-1, 2, 3, and so on ..... These are now allocating the same code points to many languages and for other purposes. Similarly, a structured and official allocations to any many requirements can be done using the same codes, say 16,000 of them. Sinnathurai On 19 August 2011 13:53, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > In what way is this not what the PUA is all about? > > -- > Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 > www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell > *From:* srivas sinnathurai <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, August 19, 2011 5:13 > *To:* Michael Everson <[email protected]> > *Cc:* unicode Unicode Discussion <[email protected]> ; unicore UnicoRe > Discussion <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Endangered Alphabets > > This is about time we allocate a significant space withi the Unicode > code space to work in the old fashion code page provisioning mode. > > I'm not calling for any change to existing major aloocations. However, this > is about time we allocate (not PUA) large number of codes to a code page > based sub codes so that not only all 7000+ languages can Freely use it > without INTERFERENCE from Unicode and have the freedom to carry out research > works, like we were doing with the legacy 8bit codes. > > All those in favour of creating code pages, please say yes, and others > please say why not. > > Kind Regards > Sinnathurai Srivas > On 19 August 2011 10:55, Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd like to invite everyone to support this worthwhile project: >> >> >> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1496420787/the-endangered-alphabets-project/ >> >> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/ >> >> >> >> >
