From: vunzndi@vfemail.net
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 10:18:43 CST
Quoting "Asmus Freytag" <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>:
> On 1/2/2009 10:00 PM, James Kass wrote:
>> Peter Constable replied,
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Public interchange of private characters, which happens all
>> the time, is a good indicator that a case might be made for
>> plain-text encoding.
> Except for the aside, I'm in agreement. (I would instead say: "which
> ideally shouldn't happen, except in carefully controlled, closed
> environments")
The exchange of PUA characters in "public" is certain something that
happens, the requirement is that applications and processes need to be
able to cope with this fact, not choke.
If if extensive use of a PUA character set is grounds for encoding
then the question is how to decide when PUA usage is sufficient for
encoding.
John Knightley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 10:20:52 CST