From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Sep 10 2005 - 11:15:56 CDT
Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
> Support of a language/script only with PUA means that this language/
> script is NOT supported by Unicode itself, but only by the authors of
> the private agreement. Unicode provides no facility for those
> languages/script other than just allowing them to be embedded in
> documents containing other supported languages/scripts.
> So, Klingon, Tengwar or Ewellic are (still) NOT supported by Unicode
> or one of its UTFs because they these scripts currently have no
> standard codepoint assignment.
I don't really want to fight to the death over this. Most people,
including me and obviously Philippe, would interpret the statement that
a given script is "supported by Unicode" to mean that its characters are
officially and publicly encoded. However, there is *arguably* a
secondary definition that because Unicode includes a Private Use Area,
it implicitly "supports" the private encoding of any script that fits
within the PUA. This is not true of most other character encodings.
-- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 10 2005 - 11:18:09 CDT