James Kass scripsit:
> Once a meaning like
> "INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR" has been assigned to
> a code point, any application which chooses to use that code
> point for any other purpose would be at fault.
But a purely nominal one, since any use of these three codepoints
should be behind the firewall of the application.
> I understand that having common internal use code points might
> be considered handy from an implementer's point of view, but
> suggest that such conventions should be shared among implementers
> only, and should not be enshrined in a character encoding standard.
I doubt you will see any more such things. BTW, note that FFFC has
the same internal-only property.
> Because it seems to be an oxymoron. If it has a specific semantic
> meaning, then it should be possible to store and exchange it
> without any loss of meaning.
For what seemed to them good and sufficient reasons, the UTC did
not do this: they allocated the points but proscribed them from
use in interchange. Had they thought of the permanent non-character
block at the time, they probably would not have done this.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 06:58:30 EDT