From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 31 2004 - 14:26:56 EST
On 31/03/2004 10:44, Mike Ayers wrote:
> > From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> > Behalf Of Peter Kirk
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:12 AM
> > On 30/03/2004 16:30, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> > But
> > what if users of certain other scripts e.g. RTL scripts want just a
> > handful of PUA characters with the properties they need? Why is
> > preference given to CJK? This sounds like bias to me even if
> > I was wrong
> > to call it western.
> Oh, yes, Peter, you have a identified a clear bias against...
> against... against... uh, certain hypothetical situations?
Well, if you haven't read it between the lines, the clear bias is
against RTL scripts and those scripts (including Indic by the way) which
use combining characters. There is no way currently (with the default
properties) to support PUA characters relating to such scripts, although
there is for western and CJK scripts.
> > they were supposed to use the PUA at their own risk.
> Well, gee, somebody understands that principle so clearly WHEN
> IT APPLIES TO SOMEONE ELSE.
Yes, Ken! Read the context and don't snip it. He is the one who said
(correctly) that what I get when I use the PUA must be at my own risk,
but, I quote:
>Somebody else is *already* using that section of the PUA for something else. Now they have an interoperability problem...
Why is their interoperability problem something which the UTC cares
about, when mine isn't? Why doesn't the "use at your own risk" principle
apply to them just as much as to me?
> No. The *only* way to maintain compatibility between your
> applications and the system software is to ensure that your
> applications only do things that are supported by the system
> software. If you want RTL PUA, ask your system software vendor.
> Here, you're just whining into the wind.
If you want me to quit whining, quit asking me to do things which you
and I know very well are a waste of time. System software vendors are
not going to do what I want, and we all know that very well. But I have
a real requirement. The UTC has the power to meet my requirement, and to
do so rather simply. I am asking them to meet it.
Actually my current requirement is not so much for RTL PUA as for PUA
variation selectors and/or combining characters which are default
ignorable. RTL PUA is not so much of a problem, because at least in
principle it should be possible to make PUA characters RTL by enclosing
them in RLO ... PDF. I am not sure how well this is actually supported
by system software. My current requirement could be met by defining a
probably quite small set of PUA combining characters (with combining
class zero) which would be default ignorable. For an example of why this
might be useful, see my posting today to the Unicode Hebrew list.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 16:45:09 EST