From: Erkki I Kolehmainen (eik@iki.fi)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2011 - 10:12:59 CST
Mr Overington,
Who do you propose should participate in the secret ballot?
I'm quite happy with the UTC and SC2/WG2 agreeing on this and other issues.
Sincerely,
Erkki I. Kolehmainen
-----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] Puolesta William_J_G Overington
Lähetetty: 10. maaliskuuta 2011 11:23
Vastaanottaja: unicode@unicode.org; Peter Constable
Kopio: wjgo_10009@btinternet.com
Aihe: Encoding of invented items (from RE: Assigning a plane for mapping digits for many different bases)
On Wednesday 9 March 2011, Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Not that there has to be a very large community of users, but 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.
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?
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that registration be automatic, there would be a rigorous assessment procedure.
What I am suggesting is that for new electronic system items that it is unreasonable and a needless barrier to progress for someone to need to first establish widespread usage using the Private Use Area before encoding in regular Unicode can take place.
Consider, for example, my idea of localizable sentences. 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.
The set of localizable sentences encoded, encoded for the potential use of all users of Unicode, would be those of that manufacturer, whether the set were excellent, good, mediocre, poor or bad.
Yet if Unicode were willing to consider proactive encoding, then an excellent set could be encoded, a set defined by the input of many people and the decisions of experts on a Unicode Consortium committee.
Likewide with my idea for a Portable Interpretable Object Code. If a manufacturer encodes its own portable interpretable object code as Private Use Area characters and then uses those characters in equipment, then that object code is what would be encoded into regular Unicode, for compatibility with storing the messages in databases.
The Portable Interpretable Object Code encoded, encoded for the potential use of all users of Unicode, would be those of that manufacturer, whether that particular portable interpretable object code were excellent, good, mediocre, poor or bad.
Yet if Unicode were willing to consider proactive encoding, then an excellent portable interpretable object code could be encoded, a portable interpretable object code defined by the input of many people and the decisions of experts on a Unicode Consortium committee.
Please consider what happened with the emoji. The set that was encoded was, mostly, the set that some manufacturers encoded in their mobile telephones. Yet they are presented in Unicode as a set of characters that can be used by anyone in the user community. Yet there was no call for input to the user community with a view to including symbols suggested by the user community.
I feel that the reasons as to why proactive encoding is not allowed should be reviewed. Is the present prohibition of proactive encoding still reasonable, in an age where much innovation is totally electronic? The present practice of expecting that widespread usage using the Private Use Area must first be achieved is, in my opinion, not reasonable as the very fact of a Private Use Area encoding implies proprietary rights and is a barrier to widespread implementation.
Certainly, a policy of proactive encoding would assist my research, yet there could be other benefits as well. For example, each year, there could be a festival of symbol art for the Unicode Conference and about ten to sixteen of the entries, "the prize winners", could be encoded into regular Unicode afterwards.
Can we have a secret ballot on whether to allow proactive encoding please?
William Overington
10 March 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2011 - 10:15:27 CST