On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, William Overington wrote:
[reams on the notion that the forces of glyph encoding may overwhelm
the defenders of Unicode.]
Well yes, people are free to tunnel anything they like in the PUA and
assuming their Unicode applications are willing to allow much larger
datafields than otherwise expected, they will survive intact. But
given the aversion most parties have to implementing advanced font
rendering engines, I doubt that a uniengine like scheme is going to
be installed at the lowest levels where it belongs.
But even your alternate model where a company registers arbitrary stuff
in the PUA for fellow club members, is not going to be welcomed by people
who want actual data interchange. Unicode contains much more than a
collection of glyphs - which is why the encoding process is fairly slow.
I just don't see people registering their glyphs for free doing the
necessary work to unify and correctly assign properties and semantics
so programs that do something other than draw pictures can actually
work with the text.
People who *really* want their quirky, "Only 6 people on the planet know
what this means," glyphs included in a document should use a higher level
protocol like HTML which lets them include inline pictures.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:19 EDT