Philippe wrote: > But my initial suggestion implied that condition 3 was not part of it. This is not me, but sriva that has modified the problem. The problem was changed later by adding new conditions that I have never intended. It is clear that this condition 3 is completely unsatisfiable in all cases.
The problem was stated initially by srivas, yesterday, so it's hard to imagine how he modified it. But of course I agree, and said so first, that condition 3 (one font, two different characters, same font, plain text) is impossible. -- Doug Ewell • [email protected] Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philippe Verdy <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:10:27 To: Doug Ewell<[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Multiple private agreements (was: RE: Code pages and Unicode) 2011/8/24 Doug Ewell <[email protected]>: > Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote: > >>> (1) a plain-text file >>> (2) using only plain-text conventions (i.e. not adding rich text) >>> (3) which contains the same PUA code point with two meanings >>> (4) using different fonts or other mechanisms >>> (5) in a platform-independent, deterministic way >>> >>> One or more of the numbered items above must be sacrificed. >> >> The only numbered item to sacifice is number (3) here. that's the case >> where separate PUA agreements are still coordinated so that they don't >> use the same PUA assignments. This is the case of PUA greements in the >> Conscript registry. > > Number 3 was the entire basis for srivas's question: > > "If same codes within PUA becomes standard for different purposes, how > to get both working using same font? > How to instruct text docs, what font if different fonts are used?" > > Changing the question around, so that we are no longer talking about one > code point with two meanings, doesn't accomplish anything. But my initial suggestion implied that condition 3 was not part of it. This is not me, but sriva that has modified the problem. The problem was changed later by adding new conditions that I have never intended. It is clear that this condition 3 is completely unsatisfiable in all cases.
