From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 15:38:48 EDT
> At 10:34 -0700 2003-07-14, Peter Kirk wrote:
> >On 14/07/2003 09:04, Doug Ewell wrote:
> >>* Michael Everson's and Roozbeh Pournader's provisional PUA assignments
> >>for ARABIC PASHTO ZWARAKAY and AFGHANI SIGN, two legitimate characters
> >>that cannot be represented in Unicode by any other means.
> >Why not, may I ask, as a newcomer to this list? Is there some
> >technical reason, or a political one?
Michael Everson responded:
> What do you mean? The ZWARAKAY is a new combining mark; the AFGHANI
> SIGN is a unique currency symbol. Neither is yet encoded.
The ZWARAKAY has been approved for encoding by the UTC:
U+0659 ARABIC ZWARAKAY
It still has to wend its way through the ISO ballotting process,
so it is a couple years away from final publication, at this
The UTC hasn't considered the AFGHANI SIGN yet, but there is
no reason to think that it will be controversial when it comes
up in a formal proposal.
These are just two more examples of legitimate characters,
fairly recently identified, that will take awhile to be
standardized in a particular (future) version of the Unicode
Standard. Implementations which need to use them *now* may,
as Michael has suggested, make use of PUA encoding, in the
knowledge that once standardization is complete, they will
have to shift their representation to the standard code points.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 16:27:43 EDT