Re: Multiple private agreements (was: RE: Code pages and Unicode)

From: Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:39:24 +0000

Philippe wrote:

> But my initial suggestion implied that condition 3 was not part of it.
This is not me, but sriva that has modified the problem. The problem
was changed later by adding new conditions that I have never intended.
It is clear that this condition 3 is completely unsatisfiable in all
cases.

The problem was stated initially by srivas, yesterday, so it's hard to imagine how he modified it. But of course I agree, and said so first, that condition 3 (one font, two different characters, same font, plain text) is impossible.

--
Doug Ewell  doug_at_ewellic.org
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Verdy <verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr>
Sender: unicode-bounce_at_unicode.org
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 02:10:27 
To: Doug Ewell<doug_at_ewellic.org>
Reply-To: verdy_p_at_wanadoo.fr
Cc: <unicode_at_unicode.org>
Subject: Re: Multiple private agreements (was: RE: Code pages and Unicode)
2011/8/24 Doug Ewell <doug_at_ewellic.org>:
> Philippe Verdy <verdy underscore p at wanadoo dot fr> wrote:
>
>>> (1) a plain-text file
>>> (2) using only plain-text conventions (i.e. not adding rich text)
>>> (3) which contains the same PUA code point with two meanings
>>> (4) using different fonts or other mechanisms
>>> (5) in a platform-independent, deterministic way
>>>
>>> One or more of the numbered items above must be sacrificed.
>>
>> The only numbered item to sacifice is number (3) here. that's the case
>> where separate PUA agreements are still coordinated so that they don't
>> use the same PUA assignments. This is the case of PUA greements in the
>> Conscript registry.
>
> Number 3 was the entire basis for srivas's question:
>
> "If same codes within PUA becomes standard for different purposes, how
> to get both working using same font?
> How to instruct text docs, what font if different fonts are used?"
>
> Changing the question around, so that we are no longer talking about one
> code point with two meanings, doesn't accomplish anything.
But my initial suggestion implied that condition 3 was not part of it.
This is not me, but sriva that has modified the problem. The problem
was changed later by adding new conditions that I have never intended.
It is clear that this condition 3 is completely unsatisfiable in all
cases.
Received on Wed Aug 24 2011 - 20:42:16 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 24 2011 - 20:42:25 CDT