Patrick Rourke scripsit:
> Would it be a misuse of the PUA to come up with a private agreement within a
> community to assign certain codepoints in the PUA to characters that have
> been proposed to the Unicode Consortium, but not yet approved, so that font
> designers and others in that community could get to work on establishing
> support for these characters, and so that content providers can begin the
> process of incorporating these characters into their content?
It is not only *not* a misuse, it is one of the intended uses,
one might say the most important intended use.
> Second, is ConScript (I know ConScript isn't a Unicode Consortium resource,
> but since the two principals are on this list . . .) staying limited to
> "constructed scripts," or is it also accepting "natural" or "evolved"
> scripts that for one reason or another haven't been accepted into Unicode
> yet (one thinks of e.g. Old Persian, already mentioned)?
In general, no. If there is a fair chance that something will become
part of Unicode, we usually don't register it. There are exceptions,
like Tengwar and Cirth.
(In truth neither of us has had much time to process new registrations
lately. Arse longa, vita brevis.)
> The main issue I can think of is the matter of rejected characters: what
> does one do if a character is rejected by the Unicode Consortium for valid
> reasons?
I suspect that it would be unusual to reject a random documented character from
a well-established set. More likely (though not very likely) would be
to reject the whole coding model, in which case all bets would be off.
-- John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 12 2002 - 15:53:22 EST