From: Ernest Cline (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 31 2004 - 18:32:48 EST
> [Original Message]
> From: Peter Kirk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Ernest, I support your general ideas here. But I am concerned about the
> implications of defining PUA characters with combining classes other
> than zero. I can see this causing some confusion with normalisation etc.
> And it does hugely multiply the number of PUA characters required.
> Is it really necessary to support to this level of detail the concept of
> canonical equivalence of PUA sequences?
If you want them to be able to interact with the existing combining marks
then any proposal for more specific private use characters will need to
include combining characters for every existing combining class. 128
characters per class may prove to be overly generous, but it serves
as a starting point for discussion. The number was chosen because
of the stated preference of assigning character blocks that line up
in groups of 128. A detailed proposal would definitely need to examine
existing scripts as it would be wasteful to assign too many yet pointless
to assign too few. I can't see any useful proposal for more specific
Private Use characters as using less than half a plane. Any proposal
that uses more than one plane will need a lot of justifying to have any
chance, and even with ten unspoken planes out there, Any proposal
that would call for more than two planes will not go anywhere.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 31 2004 - 19:14:32 EST