From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2009 - 13:34:17 CST
Asmus Freytag wrote,
>Right, but these are data streams that use a plain-text protocol, no
>matter how you'd wish you could redefine that.
Nobody cares if you abuse plain-text protocol with PUA characters.
>>> You can expect these codes to leak onto the web in due course,
>>> if this is not happening already.
Shouldn't we find out if it is happening first?
>>> 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.
Closing the system makes it private and solves the real problem.
>> Suppose for a moment that you and I are sociable Japanese schoolgirls
>That would exhaust my ration for imagination for the next six weeks at
It was rather far-fetched, wasn't it? As if *I'd* ever own
a cell phone.
>> Text messages sent between cell phone users aren't
>> any concern of Unicoders or search engines. Or
>> anybody else, for that matter.
>That might be your opinion, but I don't think that this is a consensus
>position in the character encoding committees.
A hypothetical secret police agency would also disagree with
concerns about privacy.
>> The private nature of these messages fits very well
>> within the framework of PUA.
>So I am now to use PUA when I write you off-list ;-)
If you have any personal or idiosyncratic characters to share,
I'd like to see them. If we're to exchange anything confidential,
though, we'd better lower the cone of silence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 05 2009 - 13:36:54 CST