2013-02-18 17:36, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Erkki I Kolehmainen <eik_at_iki.fi> wrote:
>> It may also be the result of a negotiating process within a special purpose user group.
>
> I also see no problem with the current definition. Since the whole
> point of the standard is to ease the exchange of text if a particular
> section of the PUA is to be useful in exchange of text among a certain
> community (say the users of a conscript) then there has to be an
> implicit or explicit private agreement among them regarding that
> section of the PUA. Even when you use a font which contains a
> particular glyph at a PUA code point, you "agree" to use that
> codepoint to represent that written form.
I agree (no pun intended) with all this, and Erkki’s explanation was
very informative. This makes me wonder whether something along these
lines should appear in the standard, to make it more readable and to
avoid future misunderstandings and problems.
After all, the phrase “private agreement” might be interpreted in a
narrow sense, requiring explicit agreement, maybe even a signed paper.
Perhaps something like the following might be a useful addition (e.g.,
as second paragraph of subsection 16.5):
A private agreement that constitutes some meaning and use for a code
point may be explicit, as a result of a negotiating process within a
special purpose user group, or it may be implied. For example, if a font
designer allocates a private use code point to a character that is not
encoded in Unicode, then anyone using the font implicitly accepts this
allocation for a specific context.
Yucca
Received on Mon Feb 18 2013 - 10:36:34 CST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Feb 18 2013 - 10:36:34 CST