Re: Why 17 planes?

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 21:28:56 -0700

Philippe Verdy wrote:

> And it will still remain enough place in the remaining planes to
> define later a few more surrogates of a new type, if really needed for
> a future, upward compatible, standard if it ever comes to reality —
> such as having an open registry of corporate logos or glyph designs,
> managed by registrars, and served by Internet like Internet domain
> names (up to the online delivery of these glyphs or logos with
> "Internet-hosted fonts"), i.e. for encoding objects that won't be
> worth the need to warranty a long term stability within Unicode/ISO/
> IEC 10646 themselves, as these encoded objects will depend largely on
> the lifetime of exclusive IP rights and are already not in scope of
> Unicode/ISO/IEC 10646. And when these technolgoies will be developed,
> nothing will prevent the Unicode/ISO/IEC 10646 standards to make a
> reference (later) to these mechanisms (for the online delivery of
> compatible fonts supporting these standards, both open fonts, or fonts
> with private designs, presented as a collection of glyphs in this
> external repertoire, plus registered selection rules).

Lots of things in the world have been encoded, or could benefit from
being encoded.

There is no need for things that are *not characters* in the
Unicode/10646 sense to be encoded either directly in Unicode/10646
itself, as others have suggested, or in a Unicode/10646-compatible
framework, as you appear to suggest.

It is perhaps a tribute of some sort to the elegance of Unicode/10646
that people seem to want to use it to encode things that are so
desperately far out of its scope.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell ­ 
Received on Tue Nov 27 2012 - 22:30:09 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Nov 27 2012 - 22:30:09 CST