Re: Definitions

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu Nov 13 2003 - 12:12:17 EST

  • Next message: "Re: Definitions"

    On 13/11/2003 07:51, wrote:

    >... and the only
    >conformant applications are those which pass PUA characters through untouchted,
    >though they would generally do so with a source and/or sink that assigns
    >meaning and hence the system as a whole is still non-conformant.
    Not if the source and the sink are consenting adults, or children, or
    processes, which can assign meaning to PUA characters by private
    agreement. The source and the sink are higher level entities with their
    own higher level protocols. The channel between source and sink, which
    is the Unicode level and below, should be transparent to PUA characters,
    indeed to all characters apart from defined transformations. That surely
    is the point of the PUA. If the channel starts messing around with the
    characters sent through it, that is what is non-conformant.

    If the higher level protocol chooses not to use PUA characters, it is of
    course entitled not to, and in that case to treat as a protocol error
    any PUA characters it receives from a lower layer.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 13 2003 - 13:23:47 EST