2012/11/28 Doug Ewell <[email protected]> > Using the PUA to extend Unicode substantially beyond what a character > encoding standard is supposed to be, and (especially) expecting others > to adopt that non-character PUA usage, or expecting it to be ipso facto > a step toward formal encoding, is wrongheaded. The right approach is to > develop a new standard and, if needed, integrate Unicode into it, not > try to integrate the new standard into Unicode.
That's the right approach that I effectively meant, there is no disagreement here. PUA are a useful tool to allow further experimentation to occur (using technical tools, but other means are possible even without PUA or even without technical tools), then an usage to appear, then a standard being adopted, and then possibly integrated in the non-PUA part of the UCS, with additional algorithms, or properties, or usage conventions possibly standardized too. I hope that some day the Egyptian hieroglyphs will have a stable standard and a new usage guide will be integrated that may require new control characters to be encoded (including for the complex layout if possible : there's still a life beyond just the BiDi algorithms and linear layouts, which is also semantic by nature). And this may also happen in the future to stabilize the set of CJK sinograms (and new algorithms to search or compose them and map them with existing precomposed sinograms, even if IDS are still not sufficient for that).
