From: Gary L. Wade (
Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 15:34:56 EST

I agree, the PUA should be up to the application developer as to what is
in there.

Now, for a PRACTICAL discussion about the means of determining what
those characters are, there SHOULD be added (if it isn't already there,
that is) some means to tag those characters in a particular file as
being "pua/microsoft" or "pua/apple" or "pua/DoofusCompanyInc" characters.

This would allow applications that want to operate upon Unicode-based
files to correctly interpret and use that PUA area as originally
designed by the developer (sort of like an application developer's code
page, as it were). Of course, versioning information probably should be
added, too, so you might have tags like "pua/microsoft/1.0" or

Gary L. Wade
Product Development Consultant
DesiSoft Systems             | Voice:   214-642-6883
9619 E. Valley Ranch Parkway | Fax:     972-506-7478
Suite 2125                   | E-Mail:
Irving, TX 75063             |

Paul Dempsey wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James E. Agenbroad [] > ... > > > Using the PUA for glyphs sems contrary to the our basic > > premises, but can > > we prevent consenting users from doing so? It seems > > contradictory to say. > > "Use these codes any way you wish" but "Don't use them for > > X". We could > > specify some likely undesirable outcomes of proposed PUA > > usages and hope > > they will heed the warning. > > Anyone can use the PUA for anything they want to. If it's useful for > managing glyphs for some purpose, then why not? It should be a free arena. > All bets are off as to the meaning of data in this area in plain text. The > standard shouldn't restrict it's use in any way, other than the conformance > clauses that are already there. > > --- Paul

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:59 EDT