From: Shriramana Sharma <>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:17:49 +0530

On 08/22/2011 12:21 PM, Jonathan Rosenne wrote:
> I don't buy the assumption that all the world is either AAT, Graphite
> or Uniscribe.

Nobody asserted that either. It is only pointed out that major
implementations are able to provide what you seek.

> Anyhow, this discussion is going off topic, the issue is should
> Unicode specify an RTL PUA area, not whether some products, however
> respectable, provide a bypass.

I don't see why you call it a *bypass*. Only if the road in front of you
presents obstacles and does not allow you to proceed further, you need
to take a bypass. If we are considering the Standard as the road which
we need to take, the road doesn't present any obstacle to using PUA
characters as RTL, so Graphite etc are not providing a *bypass* but in
fact just being good generous implementations that allow custom
properties for the PUA as the Standard allows.

The request being made to allocate BC=R areas in the PUA is sure to
generate an impression that conformant implementations should consider
such a property normative, which then would violate the definition of
the PUA that conformant implementations need not treat any property of
the PUA as normative.

Returning to your concerns, it is being asserted that since
implementations are *already* able to provide for custom properties for
the PUA, there is *no* need for Unicode to specify an RTL PUA area and
furthermore as such a specification would violate the definition of the
PUA, it should also *not* be done. One both *need* not do it and
*should* not do it.

Shriramana Sharma
Received on Mon Aug 22 2011 - 07:50:19 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Aug 22 2011 - 07:50:19 CDT