From: Shriramana Sharma <>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:31:19 +0530

On 08/19/2011 09:01 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> On 08/19/2011 11:03 AM, Shriramana Sharma wrote:
>> In effect, changing the existing BC=L to ON is no worse than changing
>> it to R.
> I think making the directionality of the PUA "L" instead of "ON" was a
> mistake in the first place, yes, but does even the PUA fall under the
> commandment "Thou shalt not change what is already encoded"?

Even the *non-PUA* isn't subject to that "commandment". See

Anyhow, after Mark Davis' clarification that the BC=L for PUA characters
isn't *binding*, I no longer think it is important to change the BC to
ON. The existing BC=L only reflects the *greater probability* of the
directionality of these characters, which is true anyhow.

> Even
> though it isn't encoded? That is, my understanding is that we *can't*
> change the PUA to ON now, but that there is a suggestion that some *new*
> hunk of PUA be created that is R, in order to balance the existing L.
> Is that right?

Right, Michael is suggesting that, but since the properties of the PUA
characters aren't binding as said above, this is also unnecessary. Would
mean yet another chunk of space where we aren't allowed to encode
anything. (Yes yes I know all that about "plenty of space", but that
space gets filled up pretty quickly. I predict/expect the SMP will be
filled soon.)

Shriramana Sharma
Received on Fri Aug 19 2011 - 12:02:15 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Aug 19 2011 - 12:02:15 CDT