From: Peter Kirk (peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2003 - 18:04:08 EDT
On 14/07/2003 12:38, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>>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
>point.
>
>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.
>
>--Ken
>
>
>
>
>
Thank you, Michael and Ken. I had misunderstood Doug's original
statement as suggesting that these characters could not be accepted, not
simply that they had not yet been accepted.
-- Peter Kirk peter.r.kirk@ntlworld.com http://web.onetel.net.uk/~peterkirk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 14 2003 - 18:42:53 EDT