Re: Furigana

From: John Cowan (
Date: Wed Aug 14 2002 - 08:30:00 EDT

James Kass scripsit:

> Once a meaning like
> "INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR" has been assigned to
> a code point, any application which chooses to use that code
> point for any other purpose would be at fault.

But a purely nominal one, since any use of these three codepoints
should be behind the firewall of the application.

> I understand that having common internal use code points might
> be considered handy from an implementer's point of view, but
> suggest that such conventions should be shared among implementers
> only, and should not be enshrined in a character encoding standard.

I doubt you will see any more such things. BTW, note that FFFC has
the same internal-only property.

> Because it seems to be an oxymoron. If it has a specific semantic
> meaning, then it should be possible to store and exchange it
> without any loss of meaning.

For what seemed to them good and sufficient reasons, the UTC did
not do this: they allocated the points but proscribed them from
use in interchange. Had they thought of the permanent non-character
block at the time, they probably would not have done this.

John Cowan
Please leave your values        |       Check your assumptions.  In fact,
   at the front desk.           |          check your assumptions at the door.
     --sign in Paris hotel      |            --Miles Vorkosigan

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Aug 14 2002 - 06:58:30 EDT