From: James Kass (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Mar 24 2009 - 22:07:51 CST
Doug Ewell responded to William Overington,
>> I am hoping that one day a portable interpretable object code will be
>> added to regular Unicode.
>It wasn't an appropriate use of a character encoding standard when you
>proposed it 7 years ago, and it isn't an appropriate use now.
Some of us have recently had our collective noses rubbed
in the notion that propriety of use has little to do with
text character standardization nowadays.
With respect to William Overington’s suggested possibility
of adding portable interpretable object code characters to
regular Unicode, propriety may not be an issue. Rather,
the issue may be usage.
Even if it’s true that users exchange code which performs
the listed functions, users are not exchanging such code
*as computer text characters*. (ASCII strings notwithstanding.)
Unicode is about what people are doing or have done, not about
what they might do if only such-and-such were accepted. (To
paraphrase something you wrote a while back.)
Quoting William Overington from the high-logic list thread,
>WO> There is no software running system implementing
>WO> this processor at present. I am hoping that publication
>WO> of the font, the typecase_ pdf and these notes will lead
>WO> to a software running system being produced. References
>WO> to the running system in the following notes are theoretical
>WO> and do not refer to any implemented software. At present I
>WO> cannot myself produce the running system for the processor.
If the suggested possibility were acted upon, if someone were
to write the required software and people started exchanging
information using the P. U. A. characters suggested, then a
standardization proposal should be considered on its merits.
After all, the door is wide open, isn’t it?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 24 2009 - 22:10:48 CST