From: Christopher Fynn (chris.fynn@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 12 2009 - 02:21:03 CST
On 12/01/2009, Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Finally, I want to remind you again, that the decision tree for deciding
> to encode compatibility characters is different from the decision tree
> for ordinary characters. For the latter you start with "are they plain
> text". For the former you start with "are they interchanged". That makes
> all the difference in the world, and confusing these two cases, as
> several participants in this discussion continue to do isn't helping
> anyone. Let alone helping UTC come up with a solid decision.
> A./
If the criteia for encoding compatibility characters is different from
that of ordinary characters - then perhaps they should be encoded in a
block seperate from ordinary characters and not mixed together or
unified. If this whole group is required for interoperability ~ then
encode the whole group on one of the upper planes as a single block of
emoji compatibility characters. This would give us the whole lot
claimed necessary for interoperability and avoid the PUA or markup.
- Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 12 2009 - 02:23:00 CST