From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 05:24:32 CST
On 1/3/2009 2:06 AM, Ruszlan Gaszanov wrote:
> Peter Constable wrote:
>> 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.
> The fact that now not 3 but 5 vendors are using those PUA conventions does not necessarily make it "public interchange". As I see it, the usage is still restricted to the limited number of specific vendors.
What's the magic number at which things become "public" in your take? 6
vendors? 60 vendors? 600 vendors? 6000 vendors?
In that context, it's worth remembering that the two emoticons (sic)
that have been encoded in Unicode forever at WHITE/BLACK SMILING FACE
exist because of a single vendor's character set: IBM's code page 437
(and its descendants).
Telephone text messages are not a closed system, because telecoms
typically provide means to connect to incoming and outgoing email at the
minimum. You can expect these codes to leak onto the web in due course,
if this is not happening already. Whatever the mechanism for that
leakage, what Peter is rightly objecting to is a world where text in
open interchange needlessly contains units that are un-interpretable.
It doesn't matter whether one or two vendors are causing this - as long
as their system isn't *closed*, it's not true private interchange.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 05:27:41 CST