Re: Why 17 planes?

From: William_J_G Overington <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:33:47 +0000 (GMT)

On Wednesday 28 November 2012, Doug Ewell <> wrote:
> William_J_G Overington <wjgo underscore 10009 at btinternet dot com> wrote:
> > For example, there is my research on communication through the language barrier...
> No, stop right there. This is an excellent example of something that is NOT characters, and has NO place in a character encoding standard.
> As I wrote in my other post: Define a new standard for the elements of your system, and define the rules by which elements are encoded (or not). Do NOT try to make this system conceptually part of Unicode.
Well, consider please the following example, from a simulation, of the text of a plain text email.

Margaret Gattenford

Anne Johnson

It is from page 17 of the locse_four_simulations.pdf document.
> Do NOT imagine that encoding these non-character elements in the PUA makes them characters.
Well, in the post to which you have replied, I wrote as follows, using the phrase "as if".
For a developed system to become part of the information technology facilities that are widely available to end users, I feel that unique plain text encodings as if the items were Unicode/10646 characters will be needed.
end quote
So, I am not suggesting that the items are characters, I am suggesting that they are encoded as if they are characters.
I feel that if a collection of such items were encoded into Unicode/10646 as if they were characters, possibly in plane 13, that that would be good. 
> Do NOT imagine that creating a font with glyphs for these elements makes them characters.
Well, it does not make the items characters. However, they are encoded as if they are characters so as to be able to use them intermixed with characters so that they can be sent in plain text emails and could be used with a specially adapted email reading system so as to produce a localized screen display that is totally characters.
Yet, please consider the emoji that are encoded. For amny of them, the items are depicted as pictures and localization takes place in the mind of the end user viewing the picture.
The items in my research are depictable as symbols, as if in language Y, with language code x-y and could be localized by an automated system into displayable text.
> Do NOT try to redefine the term "character" to make these elements fit within your new definition.
I feel that it is not a good idea for someone to try to redefine the meaning of a word so as to suit his or her own purpose. I coin a new word for a new concept when I feel the need to do so.
> There are plenty of great standards out there for encoding things that are NOT characters. Please feel free to add to THAT idea space.
Yet the items for which I am making, at a research level and not at a standardization level, definitions and encodings are for use intermixed with Unicode/10646 plain text. So I am using the technology that is best for the task.
Whether the research results in an encoding of items of that kind, though not necessarily the particular items used in the research, in Unicode/10646 as if the items were characters remains to be seen.
William Overington
29 November 2012
Received on Thu Nov 29 2012 - 04:36:04 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 29 2012 - 04:36:06 CST