From: William_J_G Overington (wjgo_10009@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Mar 26 2009 - 13:08:23 CST
On Wednesday, 25 March 2009, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest, then, that if William wants these to be
> considered for encoding, it might be helpful to actually
> build a virtual machine that interprets them and works
> correctly, and see if it can be embedded in, or made widely
> available as an add-on to, a popular product such as Adobe
> Reader, Firefox, or Google Chrome. (It might help if this
> mechanism is seen as strategically important to an
> organization represented on the UTC.) Demonstrate that the
> mechanism works, and ideally that it will not lead to a rash
> of viruses and spyware and browser takeovers. Establish
> popular usage in the PUA so that the
> "interoperability" and "existing
> implementations" arguments are compelling, and then
> write your proposal for Unicode.
Well, I have the problem of writing the interpreter. I am
rather hoping that if I can generate interest in the idea
then maybe someone who has the programming facilities,
knowledge and skill to write the interpreter might do so and
then publish it.
Also, I am not thinking in terms of it being me who writes
the proposal for Unicode. I am hoping that the idea of
encoding a portable interpretable object code into regular
Unicode will become of interest to many people and that many
people can participate in designing the best system
possible. I am not seeking to be in charge of that process.
It needs people with expertise in advanced computing to
guide the research and development.
It may take many years to achieve.
I have thought of some uses, such as multimedia
broadcasting on digital television channels and also use in
Ultracode labels. Readers are invited to think of other
uses of a portable interpretable object code encoded into
regular Unicode.
William Overington
26 March 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 26 2009 - 13:21:21 CST