On Wednesday 28 November 2012, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> wrote:
> > For example, there is my research on communication through the language
> > barrier...
> No, stop right there. This is an excellent example of something that is NOT
> characters, and has NO place in a character encoding standard.
> As I wrote in my other post: Define a new standard for the elements of your
> system, and define the rules by which elements are encoded (or not). Do NOT
> try to make this system conceptually part of Unicode.
Well, consider please the following example, from a simulation, of the text of
a plain text email.
Margaret Gattenford
Anne Johnson
Sonja
It is from page 17 of the locse_four_simulations.pdf document.
> Do NOT imagine that encoding these non-character elements in the PUA makes
> them characters.
Well, in the post to which you have replied, I wrote as follows, using the
phrase "as if".
quote
For a developed system to become part of the information technology facilities
that are widely available to end users, I feel that unique plain text encodings
as if the items were Unicode/10646 characters will be needed.
end quote
So, I am not suggesting that the items are characters, I am suggesting that
they are encoded as if they are characters.
I feel that if a collection of such items were encoded into Unicode/10646 as if
they were characters, possibly in plane 13, that that would be good.
> Do NOT imagine that creating a font with glyphs for these elements makes them
> characters.
Well, it does not make the items characters. However, they are encoded as if
they are characters so as to be able to use them intermixed with characters so
that they can be sent in plain text emails and could be used with a specially
adapted email reading system so as to produce a localized screen display that
is totally characters.
Yet, please consider the emoji that are encoded. For amny of them, the items
are depicted as pictures and localization takes place in the mind of the end
user viewing the picture.
The items in my research are depictable as symbols, as if in language Y, with
language code x-y and could be localized by an automated system into
displayable text.
> Do NOT try to redefine the term "character" to make these elements fit within
> your new definition.
I feel that it is not a good idea for someone to try to redefine the meaning of
a word so as to suit his or her own purpose. I coin a new word for a new
concept when I feel the need to do so.
> There are plenty of great standards out there for encoding things that are
> NOT characters. Please feel free to add to THAT idea space.
Yet the items for which I am making, at a research level and not at a
standardization level, definitions and encodings are for use intermixed with
Unicode/10646 plain text. So I am using the technology that is best for the
task.
Whether the research results in an encoding of items of that kind, though not
necessarily the particular items used in the research, in Unicode/10646 as if
the items were characters remains to be seen.
William Overington
29 November 2012
