Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters

From: C J Fynn (
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 09:00:46 EDT

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "PUA as the Wild West [was: SSP default ignorable characters]"

     "Doug Ewell" <> wrote:

    > Once you assign a character to a PUA code point, you have the right (and
    > IMHO the responsibility) to assign appropriate properties to it. (As
    > Peter Kirk points out, though, that doesn't magically endow software
    > with the ability to recognize those properties.)

    Unless you use some private scheme - to have such properties "recognised" they
    would need to be available in some standard, specified format. I guess these
    properties could be defined in some standardised way in documents that use
    them - or, since users are usually going to need a font to display glyphs for
    any characters assigned to PUA codepoints, a table containing the
    appropriate property values could be added to "PUA fonts". If a
    standard name and specification was published for such a table it
    wouldn't be too difficult for font developers to add such a table to their
    fonts or for software developers to make applications which used the

    Of course any system which implemented something like this would have to be
    designed to avoid conflicts in situations where there were multiple PUA fonts
    with different characters having conflicting properties assigned to the same
    PUA codepoints.

    - Chris

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 09:54:17 EDT