William:
It seems to me that you are still missing the point I'm making.
>For example, in everyday use of the English language, if I write the word
>horse then you have a knowledge of what that word means
That assumes a prior agreement that we're speaking English. In context, you
may be able to infer that, though not necessarily. Out of context, the
possibility of misinterpretation is greater. If I write "chat", do you know
what I mean?
If I send you PUA characters, even in context you don't know what I mean
unless we have a separate agreement as to what the characters mean.
>There are, I suggest, essentially two broad classes of ways to achieve
this
>result. One class is of ways that are defined within the private use
areas
>themselves, the other class is of ways that have some assistance from one
or
>more codes that are not in the private use area.
>
>I have, thus far, suggested only a way that is entirely within the private
>use area itself.
And the point that you have yet to acknowledge is that this is only
possible if you and I have separately agreed that we're going to do this in
the same way.
> Others have suggested the use of a private use area
>interpretation tag, which would require the Unicode Consortium to help
solve
>the problem.
I wouldn't count on that happening. It's the wrong way to deal with what is
a metadata problem.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:17:16 EDT