From: Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 14:59:00 CST
> On Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:28:08 pm David Starner wrote:
> > I don't know that that's true. If a user decides to use the PUA in an
> > internal system, who are we to object? They implicitly promise it
> > won't see open use,
> Sorry, but PUA use does not in any way promise it won't be used in the open.
Certainly, PUA can be used for open intercourse -- although it might
scare the horses. However, for best results, it is important
to recognize that *private* use characters do require private
assignations of meanings. In other words, please get a room! ;-)
> If such a rule is desired, Unicode needs to start allocating regions for open
> usage of non-notorious scripts. Until then, PUA is the only reasonable way to
> openly use characters Unicode refuses to encode.
Or even to use things-for-which-there-is-no-consensus-they-are-characters
that the UTC refuses to encode as characters.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 27 2011 - 15:01:08 CST