From: Peter Constable (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 02 2009 - 20:53:05 CST
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of James Kass
Peter Constable wrote,
>> These are getting interchanged publicly between
>> different vendors products. That's not private use.
> Semantics. There is no point to user defined characters if
> they can't be exchanged. There is even at least one well-known
> PUA registry.
I don't mean just communicated between different vendors' processes, but also interpreted and processed by different vendors' processes, in contexts where no private agreement can be assumed. If text content is getting generated in (say) DoCoMo text protocols, spreading into other content via other protocols and then that content is getting interpreted by processes produced by Google or Apple or whomever, than the sense in UTC (I think I can say) is going to be that that is *public* interchange, hence presenting a case for being representable in the UCS.
>> > How does allowing these things in now preclude other ICT industry
>> > sectors from making their own icon sets and exchanging them via
>> > plain-text protocols as private use characters?
>> Obviously, encoding these would not be done as a
>> tactic to keep others from doing likewise.
> Quite so. Refusing to encode these would be the best
> tactic to keep others from using the PUA to "promote"
> their thingies into regular Unicode.
By that line of argumentation, we could completely freeze encoding of any new characters as a tactic to keep others from inventing new characters that might need to be encoded -- sure, we could do that; but that doesn't mean we *should* on that basis.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 02 2009 - 20:55:38 CST