William Overington wrote, responding to Ken:
> As I have not claimed that any such case actually exists at the
> present time, then the challenge is null and void and I have no need to
> answer it.
Hmmm... I still think, personally speaking, that you're going through a
lot of effort that appears basically pointless because there isn't any
problem. If you could illustrate the existence of a real and more-or-less
serious problem, I would probably take the discussion seriously.
At this point, I still don't see an actual problem that is affecting lots
of people, so there's a lot of list traffic being spent to not much effect.
> I must also convince the Unicode Consortium that it has the power to
> implement private use area support tags even if the Unicode Consortium
> were to accept that private use area support tags were needed.
Why must you do that? What would be the point of convincing them that
they can do something to support a non-problem? It sounds like perhaps
you have a personal agenda that requires such a thing as a springboard.
That doesn't necessarily translate into a world-wide problem with the PUA.
> I happen to think that the Unicode Consortium arguably might have the
> power to implement private use area support tags if it chose to do so.
Well, honestly, the Consortium, like any organization, can do lots of
things, but they may not be interested in doing some things that they
could do. I suspect they may have bigger and more immediately
problemmatic fish to fry -- like the living scripts of South & Southeast
Asia that still need to be encoded. Or the worldwide lack of a decent
and complete language tagging standard...
> If the issue of capability to implement were resolved in favour
> of the view that the Unicode Consortium does indeed have the capability
> to implement private use area support tags in a non-private use area
> of the unicode code point space, then the issue of whether to implement
> or not to implement and if to implement in what manner to implement
> would become a normal Unicode Technical Committee process.
I would assert already that UTC could in fact implement such a thing. I
believe they should not do so because that would undermine the freedom of
action within the PUA itself. If you took a straw poll of UTC members, I
suspect you would find little or no favor for adding such support tags
for just that reason -- aside from the fact that no _need_ has yet been
demonstrated.
If you want to push the issue and get an actual response from UTC, I
suggest you submit a document with a proposal to UTC. Instructions are
on the web site.
Rick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:16 EDT