Marco Cimarosti wrote as follows.
>As you see, it is nowhere said that markup is necessarily something
>beginning with "<" or any other character. The additional information
>("markup") can be in any format, in fact the definition says: "It is
>expected that systems and applications will implement proprietary forms".
Ah! The key point. So my courtyard codes are both fancy text and markup.
The fact that they do not enter a markup bubble but instead use individual
code points to convey the formatting information does not alter the fact
that they are markup.
>> [...] I am not knocking markup, [...]
>
>Of course you aren't! Your idea of defining format controls as PUA code
>point totally fits in the above definition.
Yes.
>So, FARMYARD CODES ARE IS JUST ONE MORE FORM OF MARKUP. And text including
>the controls IS NOT PLAIN TEXT: it is William Overington's own "proprietary
>form" of rich text.
I understand what you mean. However, as regards the second sentence in the
above quote, so as not to seem to agree tosomething with which I am not
agreeing, can I please say that in the dictionary before me at present, the
word proprietary is stated as an adjective meaning "belonging to owner; made
by firm with exclusive rights of manufacture", so I would not wish courtyard
codes to be regarded as a proprietary form of rich text. I fully accept
that you were probably not using the word proprietary to convey that meaning
but to convey a sense that I had made it up myself on my own initiative as
between making it up myself on my own initiative and it being devised by a
standardization body.
>You are out of Unicode rules not because you defined your Farmyard codes in
>the PUA (which is perfectly legal, as I explain below), but because you
fail
>to accept (or understand) that these codes are a form of markup, and that
>text containing them is a "proprietary form... of fancy text".
Yes. I now understand. Thank you for the explanation.
>The only questionable usage of PUA that I can think of is duplicating
>existing characters. But this would be an absurd deed. Your other proposal
>of defining PUA ligatures goes near to this, but not quite.
Well, I did not define codes for long s t ligature and st ligature in the
golden ligatures collection because they are already in regular Unicode.
Thank you for your help.
William Overington
14 August 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 05:09:33 EDT