From: Ben Monroe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2007 - 22:21:56 CST
Apologies for the related response.
Been rather busy.
John Knightley wrote:
> Mr <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> will be pleased.
Yes, I am.
However, I expected the following protest.
Andrew West wrote:
> If we were to encode it now on Ben's word that he needs it, and he dies
> before achieving the fame that he undoubtedly deserves, Unicode will
> be lumbered ever after with a character that nobody needs.
I hope that you are not wishing that I pass away any time soon.
Seriously though, out of the over a million code points, not one could
be given for my surname?
(Before you suggest the PUA, please read through to the end of my message.)
There are a great deal of encoded characters that are honestly of not use to me.
But surely they are useful to at least someone. And when that someone
desires to communicate said character(s) with others, it becomes
useful to many.
In the real, present world I do in fact (hand) write name as <U+2FF5
You and others may not find it useful, but I have an immediate use for
it that I could use on a daily basis.
I'm not asking you to take my word.
What kind of documents would you like?
My resources as an individual are limited, but if it is within my
ability, I will supply whatever I can.
Besides personally written stuff, I have correspondences from others
using the character.
I believe I even have a redelivery postal notice with it.
So, if the opposition is so great that the character will not be
encoded, what are my options?
1) Use an embedded graphic image
-No longer plain text.
-Limited to specific environments and usages
-Will need to _constantly_ distribute a custom font.
-Said font will need to be installed by recipients.
-Possible overlap with other installed PUA fonts.
Quite acceptable for a publishing house to encode a document for
publication. But hardly acceptable for daily communication such as
e-mail with an indefinite number of people.
Quoting John Jenkins:
-"An IDS is *not* the same thing as encoding. It should be considered
a better-than-nothing stop-gap until something appropriate comes along
(either an encoded character or a registered variation sequence)".
-"Using an IDS in running text is a hack."
-Will not render correctly in most environments.
4) Hand write my name one way; type it another way. Certainly not
ideal, but it basically represents the status-quo.
Options 1-3 are all problematic. And yet option 4 is not acceptable
either. I see no other option but to use the IDS *hack* "until
something appropriate comes along".
If can not even type my own name in the Universal Character Set (UCS),
then perhaps it is more like a Semi-Universal Character Set (SUCS).
I notice a "w" and "W" in your name.
My understanding is that it is a digraph of <uu>.
It is a neologism, albeit an old one.
For the sake of discussion, suppose _hypothetically_ that double u was
not encoded for this reason.
I assume that you would still desire to handwrite your name with a
However, when you try to enter it on a computer, the best that you
could do is "Andreuu UUest".
And then when you try to argue that double u should be encoded, you
are asked for official documentation supporting this stance. Except
official documentation is limited to the currently encoded characters
which does not include a double u digraph. Catch-22. It's quite
Andrew West wrote:
> [...] the request to encode <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> did not come from a national body, and,
> critically, was not accompanied by any supporting evidence that there is a need to encode
> the character. I don't like cutesy made-up characters, but if there is evidence that a character
> is used in the public domain (e.g. names of race horses) then it may well be appropriate to
> encode it. It's all a question of evidence, which in the case of Ben's character is entirely absent.
I suspect that any evidence that I can produce will not be sufficient
for you. However, if you have any suggestions and it is within my
ability, I can certainly try my best.
In addition to what I wrote above, will a legally registered (with the
local ward office) seal suffice? I was recently told that I could
register my seal as is (<U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D>) as it need not to be
limited to encoding issues. I plan on doing so next July when I am
next going there.
PS If the above does not render correctly on your system, send
feedback to your OS maker and / or the Unicode Consortium. There are
no better options.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 31 2007 - 22:24:10 CST