Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters

From: Ernest Cline (
Date: Tue Apr 27 2004 - 12:27:18 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Proposal to add 2 Romanian characters"

    > [Original Message]
    > From: Doug Ewell <>
    > Ernest Cline <ernestcline at mindspring dot com> wrote:
    > > Others, such as Line Break, Bidi Class, and Casing are important,
    > > are used by existing software, and unlike Cursive Joining cannot
    > > simply be handled at present by putting out a Private Use font which
    > > is the current way that Private Use characters can be most easily
    > > and portably implemented. It is for support of these properties,
    > > that having a more precisely defined set of Private Use characters
    > > would be of use.
    > I'll do the Unicode Character Properties for everything in ConScript if
    > others will agree to specify the properties for their own private-use
    > thingies.

    As others have pointed out in the past, because there exist Private
    Use scripts that expect the current existing Private Use defaults,
    it would not be a good idea for Unicode to change the defaults of
    existing Private Use characters. It would be slightly helpful if there
    was a means to include guidance as to which set of Private Use
    characters was being used. It would be quite a while before
    applications would be able to take advantage for such information,
    but it could serve as the basis of a long term solution.


    might be a possible long-term solution that would enable
    such information to be stored in-band, altho give the lack
    of acceptance for in-band tags, the most I would expect
    from it would be to help define a common standard for tagging
    the set of private use characters in use that could be adopted
    by markup rather than the use of the tag characters themselves.

    > (Michael, John... I might need a little help with Tengwar.)

    present an interesting problem. They are digits, but not
    decimal digits. Should the concept of General Category
    Nd be expanded to include non-decimal number systems?

    Or would
    E06A;TENGWAR DIGIT TEN;Nl;0;L;;10;10;10;N;;;;;
    be sufficient?

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 27 2004 - 13:16:11 EDT