At 16:35 -0700 2002-08-13, Murray Sargent wrote:
>Michael Everson said "Well then they [interlinear annotation characters]
>oughtn't to have been encoded."
>
>Michael, you aren't an implementer.
I'm not the kind of implementor you are. I do implement things. :-)
>When you implement things unambiguously, you may need internal code
>points in your plain-text stream to attach higher-level protocols
>(such as formatting properties) to. Such internal code points should
>not be exported or imported.
Excuse me, this makes no sense whatsoever. If your company, for
instance, needed INTERNAL code points to attach to higher level
protocols, why did you not use the Private Use Area? Have I got this
wrong? You're saying your company did want to use them but wanted
them in the non-PUA BMP so they could -- am I getting it right -- be
INTERCHANGED. OK, that's fine, but is it the case that these are ONLY
allowed to be used by your company?
>From your point of view perhaps, they shouldn't have been encoded. But from
>an implementation point of view, they're very handy. Unicode needs to
>serve both purposes. For what use would Unicode be if you couldn't
>implement it effectively?
I'm saying I WANT to use these characters. They solve an apparent
need of mine -- they would be very handy indeed, as I said in the
Beijing meeting where they were discussed. I am mystified as to why
people are telling me that I shouldn't because lots of applications
may strip them out.
I am deeply confused.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 04:33:15 EDT