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

From: sıʌɐp ʞɹɐɯ (mark@macchiato.com)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2011 - 12:59:03 CST

  • Next message: Sarasvati: "Localizable Sentences, etc"

    Would you please refrain from any further messages to this list about
    "localizable sentences" or phrases, or your "portable object code". It is
    simply a waste of time for everyone.

    If you want to make a formal proposal to the UTC for either, then prepare a
    proposal and submit it as per instructions. I have no doubt that it would be
    rejected, but perhaps you could see it on
    http://www.unicode.org/alloc/nonapprovals.html.

    You can try getting a community to use PUA characters for what you want. Go
    ahead, knock yourself out. Form blogs; develop a community of like-minded
    folk. Just somewhere else.

    This forum is not the place to do that. It is just a waste of everyone's
    time for you to have any more messages about either of these topics on this
    list. For example, for "localizable sentences" you have not demonstrated any
    interest by anyone. In our systems alone, there are well over 500K different
    localizable phrases. There would be no point to having trying to squeeze
    messages ids (64-bit integers in this case) into a character encoding, aside
    from it being completely inappropriate for Unicode.

    Mark

    *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*

    On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:22, William_J_G Overington <
    wjgo_10009@btinternet.com> wrote:

    > 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 - 13:01:03 CST