Re: Why 17 planes?

Yes I know and I was clear about this that this was not in scope of the
current standard encoding policy

Which however still does not prevent another upward-compatible standard to
emerge using another encoding policy (e.g. for encoding glyphs or coporate
logos, in an Internet-based registry, with registrars, but without the long
term stability, or with a limited stability, with a limited grace period
where the new codes would still be reserved for a similar use by the same
registrant or then someone else, or then removed, like for domain names).

And I was clear when demonstrating that the standard PUA ranges are also
large enough to permit any extension with arbitrary number of PUA
codepoints.

But what is important is to maintain the current encoding policy (open and
not restricted by IP rights, and demonstrated as useful and used by a
significant comminity over a significant period, with some common coherence
for defining common and stable character properties across these usages) as
strict as possible, otherwise it will rapidly explode and the bet of the 17
planes will rapidly be exhausted.

2012/11/28 Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>

> Lots of things in the world have been encoded, or could benefit from being
> encoded.
>
> There is no need for things that are *not characters* in the Unicode/10646
> sense to be encoded either directly in Unicode/10646 itself, as others have
> suggested, or in a Unicode/10646-compatible framework, as you appear to
> suggest.
>
> It is perhaps a tribute of some sort to the elegance of Unicode/10646 that
> people seem to want to use it to encode things that are so desperately far
> out of its scope.
>
Received on Wed Nov 28 2012 - 02:09:03 CST