Re: Defined Private Use was: SSP default ignorable characters

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:12:49 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: Non-decimal positional digits; was: Defined Private Use"

    Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader wrote:

    >There's been a lot of discussion of the PUA in this forum over the time
    >I've been on it, but I don't think I've heard anyone make the following
    >If you're using the PUA outside a closed system, you're not using
    >The PUA is intended for the internal use of applications (or groups of
    >applications), or for interchange between applications by private
    >agreement of all parties involved. Writing a document in Microsoft Word
    >using some exotic script that doesn't have plain-vanilla behavior
    >violates this because Microsoft Word isn't a party to the private
    >agreement. You either have to write software yourself that does the
    >right thing with your characters (you don't have to rewrite Windows, but
    >you might have to rewrite Word, which I agree isn't really any more
    But then you run afoul of Peter Kirk's point, which I have to admit has
    merit: if I want to use the "default properties" that Word *does*
    support for the PUA, it's no problem: it will just work, even if
    technically I'm relying on properties that I ought to be defining
    myself. But if my script uses other properties, I'm SOL. It does seem
    awfully slanted: it's easy to use for some but not other scripts (and
    I'm not talking about complex scripts like CJK or whatever).

    >Of course, if you're going to try to standardize a use of the PUA, it
    >seems to make just as much sense to standardize the actual characters in
    >Unicode in the normal way.
    Tell that to the Klingon folks. Just because WE want to standardize
    something in the PUA doesn't mean we can convince the Unicode Consortium.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 28 2004 - 22:47:01 EDT