From: Asmus Freytag (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Mar 28 2009 - 20:54:43 CST
As Ken wrote, Unicode at the time had no choice other than to treat all
of these as opaque codes.
However, as time moves on, if by any chance there's a group interested
in defining (and using) a "standard" layout model for these characters,
two things could happen, assuming first, that such a group effort were
successful in reaching an agreed upon specification.
a) such a specification might be (co-)published by the Unicode
Consortium as its own specification
b) the Unicode Standard might afterwards reference such a specification
as a *default* (i.e. recommended for use when you don't know what else
Either of these two outcomes would be more satisfactory than the current
state; but unless someone kicks off an effort to define and implement
such a shared layout model, nothing will change from the current status.
Would creating such a layout model change the identity of these
character codes? No, because currently their use is defined only
relative to an (unspecified) layout model (aka higher level protocol).
Creating a consistent layout model is therefore fair game.
Would recommending a default layout model change the character codes?
Also no, because at the moment, implementers cannot implement these
characters without choosing some layout model. Nothing restricts the
choice of layout model, so if all implementers were to follow the same
recommended layout model (unless the user explicitly requested some
other protocol) that would be their prerogative. Making a recommendation
is therefore fair game.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 28 2009 - 21:24:53 CST