From: Christopher Fynn (cfynn@gmx.net)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2009 - 00:12:13 CST
vunzndi@vfemail.net wrote:
> If if extensive use of a PUA character set is grounds for encoding
> then the question is how to decide when PUA usage is sufficient
> for encoding.
Indeed. There is at least one *national* Standard, GB/T20524-2006
("Tibetan Coded Character Set Extension A") which uses the PUA
[F300-F8FF]. Part B of this standard uses F0000-F16FF.
These national standards are essentially extensive sets of precomposed
Tibetan ligatures previously rejected by UTC and WG2 for encoding that
China then decided to encode in the PUA.
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2009 - 00:14:34 CST