From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 14:05:41 EDT
From: "Christopher John Fynn" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> It might be helpful if the ranges of the PUA which have been
> grabbed like this by MS Word was documented somewhere
> where the information is easy to find.
For more info on End-User-Defined Characters (EUDC) in MS products, see:
Especially that second entry, which mentions the PUA explicitly.
> While I'd hate to see this become some kind of de facto encoding,
> MS Word is a rather ubiquitous application and surely you don't
> want others, who may have perfectly valid reasons for using PUA
> code points, to have problems with MS Word for no apparent reason.
While it is certainly possible for the PUA to be important for specific
purposes, the needs are usually temporary, as compared to EUDC, which in
most cases is never temporary. Thus for every one person cursing the
implementation there are several dozen or more who are praising it.
And of course no one should be assuming what an OS is going to do with a PUA
character unless the OS agreed to do it.
> BTW I thought "corporate" use of the PUA was supposed to start at
> U+F9FF and work downward and "end user" use was supposed to start
> at the bottom (U+E000) and work up. Is there a reason why this wasn't
> followed in this case?
EUDC is not as "corporate" thing; it is characters defined by end users.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 14:37:38 EDT