RE: Encoding of invented items (from RE: Assigning a plane for mapping digits for many different bases)

From: Peter Constable (petercon@microsoft.com)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2011 - 09:41:55 CST

  • Next message: Luke-Jr: "Re: Encoding of invented items (from RE: Assigning a plane for mapping digits for many different bases)"

    From: William_J_G Overington [mailto:wjgo_10009@btinternet.com]

    >> we can't use Unicode as a device for someone to get their invented
    >> character adopted by other users.
     
    > I am wondering quite why that is the case.
     
    > For example, if someone invents a new idea he or she can write a paper
    > for a journal or a magazine as a way to get the idea used by other people.

    It costs nothing to deal with an idea described in a magazine that is found to be bad, impractical, uninteresting, or that simply loses out for whatever reason to other alternatives. Characters added to Unicode, good or bad, end up entailing costs to lots of people throughout the world.
     

    > So what is wrong with someone applying for an invented character to be
    > encoded so that it becomes available for other people to use within the
    > framework of regular Unicode?

    Nothing prevents anyone from _applying_ to have a character encoded. But not every request will get accepted. If it doesn't have established usage in text processing and interchange, it won't get encoded.
     

    > Consider, for example, my idea of localizable sentences.

    Which, you have been told many times, is a bad idea.

    > By the current system, if a manufacturer encodes some localizable
    > sentences of the manufacturer's choosing into the Private Use Area
    > then sells lots of units that use those localizable sentences, then the
    > scene is set for that manufacturer's set of localizable sentences to
    > become encoded into regular Unicode, for compatibility with storing
    > the messages in databases.

    You have a huge "if" and an extrapolation that does not necessarily follow. There are no manufacturers doing that, nor are there likely to be. Even if some manufacturer does do so, anything living within their system is their business; no matter how many units they sell, if these entities are used only within their software or their database, there is effectively _one_ user.

    Peter

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2011 - 09:44:56 CST