Re: Why 17 planes?

From: Philippe Verdy <>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:01:18 +0100

2012/11/28 Doug Ewell <>

> Using the PUA to extend Unicode substantially beyond what a character
> encoding standard is supposed to be, and (especially) expecting others
> to adopt that non-character PUA usage, or expecting it to be ipso facto
> a step toward formal encoding, is wrongheaded. The right approach is to
> develop a new standard and, if needed, integrate Unicode into it, not
> try to integrate the new standard into Unicode.

That's the right approach that I effectively meant, there is no
disagreement here. PUA are a useful tool to allow further experimentation
to occur (using technical tools, but other means are possible even without
PUA or even without technical tools), then an usage to appear, then a
standard being adopted, and then possibly integrated in the non-PUA part of
the UCS, with additional algorithms, or properties, or usage conventions
possibly standardized too.

I hope that some day the Egyptian hieroglyphs will have a stable standard
and a new usage guide will be integrated that may require new control
characters to be encoded (including for the complex layout if possible :
there's still a life beyond just the BiDi algorithms and linear layouts,
which is also semantic by nature). And this may also happen in the future
to stabilize the set of CJK sinograms (and new algorithms to search or
compose them and map them with existing precomposed sinograms, even if IDS
are still not sufficient for that).
Received on Thu Nov 29 2012 - 07:02:52 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Nov 29 2012 - 07:02:52 CST