RE: Definitions

Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:02:42 EST

  • Next message: Peter Constable: "RE: Definitions"

    Peter Constable wrote,

    > It is perfectly acceptable for a conformant application to use every
    > single PUA codepoint for its own internal purposes, and to reject
    > incoming PUA codepoints or display them with some default "not
    > supported" glyph. ...

    We agree that it is acceptable for any conformant application to
    use all of the PUA internally. However, if such an application is
    designed to display Unicode text, then it needs to be able to
    distinguish that which is internal from that which isn't (IMO).

    IOW, if the old DOS applications can tell when to implement x04 as
    part of a control sequence from when to display a diamond-shaped
    glyph, then modern apps ought to be able to behave likewise.

    > ... A conformant application can even display every
    > character except (say) U+26A0 as a default "not supported" glyph and
    > still be called conformant. ...
    > Of course, such apps are not the kind of thing most of us find useful.

    Indeed. So, if an application claims to only interpret U+26A0, we
    might take this as kind of a "warning sign" that the application is
    fairly useless, eh?

    Best regards,

    James Kass

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 19:59:17 EST