Murray,
It's true implementers need some place to attach higher level
protocols, but they don't need specific points for specific
implementations of internal protocols. If they weren't good enough to be
used for exchange, then simply having some unpurposed code points
available for internal use accomplishes the same thing and is available
for other purposes as well. But at the time the annotation characters
were introduced, we were unclear about this.
tex
Murray Sargent wrote:
>
> Michael Everson said "Well then they [interlinear annotation characters]
> oughtn't to have been encoded."
>
> Michael, you aren't an implementer. When you implement things
> unambiguously, you may need internal code points in your plain-text
> stream to attach higher-level protocols (such as formatting properties)
> to. Such internal code points should not be exported or imported. From
> your point of view perhaps, they shouldn't have been encoded. But from
> an implementation point of view, they're very handy. Unicode needs to
> serve both purposes. For what use would Unicode be if you couldn't
> implement it effectively?
>
> Murray
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tex Texin cell: +1 781 789 1898 mailto:Tex@XenCraft.com
Xen Master http://www.i18nGuy.com
XenCraft http://www.XenCraft.com
Making e-Business Work Around the World
-------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Aug 13 2002 - 19:25:06 EDT