Re: An attempt to focus the PUA discussion [long]

From: Peter Kirk (
Date: Thu Apr 29 2004 - 18:19:35 EDT

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: An attempt to focus the PUA discussion [long]"

    On 29/04/2004 14:04, Language Analysis Systems, Inc. Unicode list reader

    > ...
    >I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the reason this is an issue
    >is because people want to have variation selections for combining marks,
    >and have them work right even in the presence of normalization. It does
    >kind of seem like there's a need here, but let's discuss THAT problem
    >rather than having the whole thing degenerate into long discussions
    >about how the default PUA properties discriminate against certain
    >classes of users. I don't think this is a problem you can solve with
    >the PUA, although I do think you can work around it with the PUA.
    This was indeed one of the original issues with which I started this
    discussion. I also suggested that it would be better dealt with by
    relaxing the current restrictions on use of variation selectors. The
    normalisation issue is still a real one, but I had a practical proposal
    for working round it. Unfortunately the PUA is not very useful for this,
    largely because no PUA characters are default ignorable, which is more
    or less a requirement for a variation selector.

    Peter Kirk (personal) (work)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 29 2004 - 18:56:02 EDT