From: Peter Kirk (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:14:39 EDT
On 28/04/2004 16:04, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>>>Oh? How does the existing PUA fail to support a picture font adequately?
>>My point is that, according to what Ken has written, the PUA can be used
>>for a picture font only if not only the end users but also the software
>>developers have come to a specific agreement about that picture font and
>>the identity of each character in it.
I'm glad to hear it! :-)
>>He seemed to reject my suggestion
>>that developers might sensibly support the PUA apart from such specific
>>agreements with end users, by supporting default character properties
>>for each PUA character and allowing the glyph to be specified in the font.
>It is my understanding that that is precisely what most rendering systems
>do right now with PUA characters.
Again, I am glad to hear it, and I am glad to hear that you seem to
think is sensible behaviour. For this is really all I was asking for, at
this point. I had obviously misunderstood you when I thought you were
saying that this was an abuse of the PUA because the application is not
a party to the private agreement about the interpretation of the PUA
>What you *cannot* expect a generic system to do, for example, is
>support casing rules for a bicameral script that you have
>defined a bunch of characters for in PUA code points. For *that*
>kind of behavior, you have to have an "agreement" with the implementing
>software, because it represents behavior beyond the "default character
>properties for each PUA character". ...
>>Agreed, but only if the PUA works in the kind of way which you and I
>>envisage. If it works as Ken envisages, which is very close to saying
>>that it doesn't work at all, you would be wrong to expect any support
>>for any of the properties you have listed, because applications should
>>not even try to support PUA characters of which they have no specific
>What seems to be repeated, deliberate misrepresentation of my
>position on this is getting rather tiresome.
Please, Ken, my misunderstanding is not deliberate. I may be stupid, but
I am not being deliberately obstructive. I am grateful now for your
clarification, although I still don't see how it is consistent with your
earlier insistence that "users" include software applications in this
sentence from TUS section 15.7,
> Private-use characters are assigned Unicode code points whose
> interpretation is not specified by this standard and whose use may be
> determined by private agreement among cooperating users.
But I am not expecting further clarification now.
-- Peter Kirk firstname.lastname@example.org (personal) email@example.com (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:50:11 EDT