From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 18:25:47 CST
James Kass said:
> >Yes, but remember that you have two PUA planes to use, planes 15 and
> >16. Unless you're anticipating more than 100K total, I think you'll
> >be OK.
> While I agree that the PUA might be easier to display initially,
> it should be noted that the advantages of IDSequences include
> the idea that they are *standard*
A crucial splitting of hairs is required here.
The IDC's (Ideographic Description Characters, U+2FF0..U+2FFB)
are standardized. And the unified ideographs and radical
symbol characters that can be used with them are also
The IDS's (Ideographic Description Sequences) are decidely
Which is part of the main point John Jenkins has been making.
All an IDS tells you is (roughly) what the intended appearance
is of some Han ideographic shape for a character. It tells
you nothing about the *identity* of that character, nor does
it tell you whether somebody else's related IDS is or is not
the "same" character.
*Instances* of IDSs have no status whatsoever in the standard.
All that has status is the *concept* of an IDS (and the
syntax for expressing them).
In terms of information content, an IDS is one step up
from a PUA character. For a PUA character, in the absence
of a detailed mutual agreement, you know nothing about
the character other than it is a character. For an
IDS, you know the intended approximate shape of the
character and that the intent is to describe a Han
ideographic character (as opposed to an Ethiopic letter
or an unencoded Vai syllable). But in the absence of a
detailed mutual agreement, you can't even know if the
IDS is describing an unencoded character or an *encoded*
character, nor if it is encoded, which one.
> and that input of sequences
> using standard characters is already supported.
> Best regards,
> James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 18:27:29 CST