Re: Definitions

From: jameskass@att.net
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 07:22:48 EST

  • Next message: jon@hackcraft.net: "Re: Definitions"

    .
    Jon Hanna wrote,

    > As I see it the following behaviours would all be conformant:
    >

    Jon offered opinions about PUA and conformance and was gracious
    enough to indicate that it was opinion.

    Here's my take, FWIW:

    Any application which bans or prevents the interchange or storage
    of PUA code points should be considered non conformant.

    Any application which substitutes missing glyphs for PUA characters,
    when a valid font which covers those code points is active,
    should be considered non conformant.

    Like it or not, the PUA is part of Unicode. It's a free zone, and the
    *only* restriction on its use is that TUC will never assign characters
    in the PUA ranges.

    Since the PUA is for consenting adults, any application which restricts
    PUA use is effectively precluding consenting adults from reaching
    and implementing their private agreements.

    We should never allow those who disdain the PUA to determine its
    boundaries.

    Best regards,

    James Kass
    .

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 08:25:33 EST