From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:24:14 EDT
On 28/04/2004 16:33, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> ...
>
>>have the courage of your convictions and propose doing so (or at least
>>formally deprecating it), instead of leaving it in the standard in a
>>form which makes it look useful but in fact be useless.
>>
>>
>
>Not only is it useful -- it is in wide *USE*, not only in my own
>company's software, where its use has been *REQUIRED*, and in some
>contexts which were urgent and important, but also, I presume,
>by many other software companies.
>
>
Well, yes, but a company's purely internal use is outside the scope of
the standard, because you can do what you like. Of course if you are
using even software components designed to support the standard, it is
convenient for you to follow the standard, and I suppose the existence
of the PUA helps you.
>...
>
>
>If you want to go *cheap*, then use of the PUA is easy:
>
>Definition:
>
>U+E000 = SNOREFRED LOGO CHARACTER (glyph: an elmtree with two chipmunks)
>
>Usage:
>
>"Come shop at Snorefred's (TM) friendly store!"
>
>Now Snorefred can distribute his own font with the U+E000 character
>designed and mapped accordingly, and away you go. Most everything
>will do the right thing.
>
>
If Snorefred is American, yes, or for that matter European or Indian.
But he has a problem if he is an Arab or Israeli, and probably if he is
Chinese.
-- Peter Kirk peter@qaya.org (personal) peterkirk@qaya.org (work) http://www.qaya.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 04:57:22 EDT