On Friday 19 August 2011, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, in my attempt to avoid naming names I made it look as though Karl made
> that claim. He did not. William's message was the one that attempted to
> connect the dots between official WG2 policy and the German NB proposal.
Actually, I was contrasting comments that have been expressed in this mailing
list over a long period with the comments made in the n4085.pdf document, and
asking a question.
In fact, I had thought, at the time of writing my post, that one of the items
in the list, namely the following, would be helpful in getting some symbols
that I have devised in relation to my research encoded without first needing to
achieve widespread usage using a Private Use Area encoding.
quote
– Evidence of prevention of an otherwise probable actual use due to the lack of
encoding.
end quote
Since that time there have been developments in my understanding of the
situation regarding the encoding of the symbols that I have devised, due to
some extremely helpful advice in a private email that I received.
Some time later I read and considered the following text that Asmus wrote as a
rephrasing.
quote
- evidence that it's likely a wrong character might be used for lack of an
encoded character
end quote
That rephrasing simply did not align with how I had taken the meaning of the
original: I had thought that it meant that an end user would be unable to use
any regular Unicode character for the required task and that the task would not
therefore be done at all using a regular Unicode ccharcater, not that a wrong
character would be used.
It may well be that I read the text in the n4085.pdf document in the context of
my desire to try to get the symbols that I have devised for my research encoded
into regular Unicode without the need for there first being a widely used
Private Use Area-based implentation of my idea, with the hope that a formal
assessment of an encoding proposal using that rule might generate a lot of
interest and that various people and companies would then make representations
and that a better system than I had devised myself would be the result.
However, that was then. As I wrote a few paragraphs above, I have received some
extremely helpful advice in a private email that I have received and that has
lead to my changing my approach and I am trying to think out how best to
proceed using the new approach to the problem.
William Overington
19 August 2011
