Re: The existing rules for U+FFF9 through to U+FFFC. (spins from Re: Furigana)

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Thu Aug 15 2002 - 16:07:03 EDT

> An interesting point for consideration is as to whether the following
> sequence is permitted in interchanged documents.
> U+FFF9 U+FFFC U+FFFA Temperature variation with time. U+FFFB
> That is, the annotated text is an object replacement character and the
> annotation is a caption for a graphic.

Yes, permitted. As would also be:

U+FFF9 U+FFFC U+FFFC U+FFFA U+FFF9 Temperature U+FFFA a measure of
hotness, related to the U+FFF9 kinetic energy U+FFFA energy of motion U+FFFB
of molecules of a substance U+FFFB U+FFF9 variation U+FFFA rate of change
U+FFFB with time U+FFFC . U+FFFB

Where the first U+FFFC is associated with a URL with a realtime data feed,
the second U+FFFC is a jar file for a 3-dimensional dynamic display algorithm,
and the third U+FFFC is a banner ad for Swatch watches.

> It seems to me that if that is indeed permissible that it could potentially
> be a useful facility.

Permissible does not imply useful, however, in this case. It is
unlikely that you are going to have access to software that would
unscramble such layering in purported "plain" text, even if you
had agreements with your receivers. That is what markup and rich
text formats are for.

Note that it is also *permissible* in Unicode to spell "permissible"
as "purrmisuhbal". That doesn't mean that it would be a good idea
to do so, but the standard does not preclude you from doing so.
You could even write a rendering algorithm which would display the
sequence of Unicode characters <p,u,r,r,m,i,s,u,h,b,a,l> with the glyphs
{permissible} if you so choose.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Aug 15 2002 - 14:17:21 EDT