From: Hans Aberg (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 12:32:34 CST
At 10:27 -0700 2005/04/23, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > With policy of unique character names in hand, I see a scheme like
>> follows: Unicode has a site, where private characters are registered
>> by name. Registration may require some additional information, like
>> providing rendering glyphs in a common, public format, for public
>Ask William Overington how receptive Unicode is to this idea.
Well, I can only present the input.
> > In any case, a private character number, once used for
>> something, should never be used for anything new, in order to avoid
>You'd be amazed how quickly 137,000 code points would fill up, as every
>high school kid who's ever invented an alphabet rushes to "register" it
>Not to mention the fact that the PUA would no longer be available for
>"real" private use.
>No, I'm afraid this is not going to happen.
We are essentially back at a discussion held here sometime ago: The
limit of number of Unicode code points is due to design flaw in the
UTF-16 encoding, where the engineers who did it failed to properly
separate the notions of character numbers and integer-to-binary
encoding. If one makes that separation, it is easy to extend the
ranges to even to infinity, if one so likes. This can easily done
with UTF-8/32, and also with some effort with UTF-16. One can then
have sufficiently many private code points for every citizen of the
world to register as many characters they can by hand. Note though
that a requirement of supplying a glyph in a public rendering format
would probably diminish the number of submissions. One can also have
other restrictions, to exclude submissions which in some ways are not
considered serious. But the examples on the pages you indicate would
probably qualify for inclusion.
-- Hans Aberg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 12:33:37 CST