2013-02-18 17:36, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Erkki I Kolehmainen <[email protected]> wrote:
It may also be the result of a negotiating process within a special purpose
user group.
I also see no problem with the current definition. Since the whole
point of the standard is to ease the exchange of text if a particular
section of the PUA is to be useful in exchange of text among a certain
community (say the users of a conscript) then there has to be an
implicit or explicit private agreement among them regarding that
section of the PUA. Even when you use a font which contains a
particular glyph at a PUA code point, you "agree" to use that
codepoint to represent that written form.
I agree (no pun intended) with all this, and Erkki’s explanation was
very informative. This makes me wonder whether something along these
lines should appear in the standard, to make it more readable and to
avoid future misunderstandings and problems.
After all, the phrase “private agreement” might be interpreted in a
narrow sense, requiring explicit agreement, maybe even a signed paper.
Perhaps something like the following might be a useful addition (e.g.,
as second paragraph of subsection 16.5):
A private agreement that constitutes some meaning and use for a code
point may be explicit, as a result of a negotiating process within a
special purpose user group, or it may be implied. For example, if a font
designer allocates a private use code point to a character that is not
encoded in Unicode, then anyone using the font implicitly accepts this
allocation for a specific context.
Yucca
