On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:34:27 +0200 "Jukka K. Korpela" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. There is also the possibility of applications and operating systems reserving some PUA characters for themselves without any clear warning that such reservation has been made. The only consolation is that they should be less vulnerable than non-characters, which may currently be removed because some people misread a prohibition on their use in open interchange as prohibiting their use in open interchange. To proceed positively, it should also be noted that a party to the agreement may be totally unaware of any such agreement and have no way of finding out what the agreement is. Richard.
