From: Mark Davis (mark.davis@jtcsv.com)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 11:48:46 EST
> I do say that if a webpage has U+E000 defined as banana and I have it
> defined as apple, that then their range U+E000-U+F8FF is a different PUA,
> belonging to a different extension of unicode than my range U+E000-U+F8FF
It is *not* a "different PUA". The PUA is defined to be simply a range of
code points, PUA does *not* mean the interpretation of code points in that
range. What you appear to be trying to say is something like:
"If a webpage uses the private use code point U+E000 to represent 'banana"
and I use it to represent "apple", then they are interpreting code points in
the the PUA range (U+E000-U+F8FF) differently, defining a different
extension of Unicode than mine."
Mark
________
mark.davis@jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Jacobs" <c.t.m.jacobs@hccnet.nl>
To: "Unicode mailing list" <unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 08:54
Subject: Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pim Blokland" <pblokland@planet.nl>
> To: "Unicode mailing list" <unicode@unicode.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be)
>
>
> > Chris Jacobs schreef:
> >
> > > If I interpret a B font declaration on a webpage as a private
> > > agreement
> > > that for data in that font on that webpage a PUA will be used were
> > > U+E000 is
> > > a banana that does not imply that I claim anything about which PUA
> > > I use for
> > > other purposes.
> >
> > You keep making it more and more difficult for the rest of us to
> > follow you.
> > To start with, your use of "PUA" is not what is generally meant by
> > "PUA".
> > There is no such thing as "a" PUA; there is only one Private Use
> > Area, which consist of all the codepoints that will not be assigned
> > a specific use by the Unicode Consortium. You cannot say that the
> > range of codepoints U+E000..U+E0FF is a different PUA than
> > U+E100..U+E1FF.
>
> I don't say that the range of codepoints U+E000-U+E0FF is a different PUA
> than U+E100-U+E1FF.
> I do say that if a webpage has U+E000 defined as banana and I have it
> defined as apple, that then their range U+E000-U+F8FF is a different PUA,
> belonging to a different extension of unicode than my range U+E000-U+F8FF
>
> > Secondly, you must be aware there is not, and will not be, a rule
> > about what characters in that area should look like. Yet you insist
> > on trying to convince everybody it's a good idea to remap, for
> > example "banana" to U+E100, even if the font calls it U+E000. You
> > keep on about what a good idea it would be to be able to rearrange
> > code points such that no matter how many fonts you have in use,
> > there is always a banana at U+E100. This is a restriction, an
> > unwelcome intrusion on the PUA!
>
> Being able to do things is not a restriction.
>
> > You also can't seem to decide if this is just something you want to
> > do on your own computer, or if you also want to use this scheme for
> > information interchange with other users.
>
> That is not something that should be decided upon here once and for all.
If
> I want to use this scheme for information interchange with some other
users
> then I establish private agreements with those other users.
>
> > Now what you do in the privacy of your own home is none of our
> > concern, but when communicating with the outside world, there are
> > certain rules and guidelines you should abide by. And one of those
> > guidelines is a plaintext file should not have PUA characters in
> > them, unless its author also specifies it should be displayed using
> > a certain font.
>
> Nope. Specifying a font is just one method of specifying a private
> agreement, but certainly not the only possible one.
>
> Suppose I want in my PUA control characters, like a <MOVE> or a <COPY>
> system support operation, How do you want to define those characters in a
> font?
>
> > Now if the font it should use is known, the proper
> > codepoint to display this banana of yours is also known, because
> > this info is in the font. Ergo, no need to remap!
> > Since not all fonts have a banana, it really doesn't make much sense
> > to not specify a font. The computer wouldn't know what to do!
> >
> > Lastly, I must say I think it's a pity that the suggestion I made
> > yesterday has been ignored so quietly. You know, in a HTML
> > environment, to retrieve names for characters from the font file
> > itself, to relieve the author from the task of having to enter
> > numerical values.
> > For an example, suppose you have a font named "Tengwar Quenya", with
> > a character named "hwesta" at U+E00B,
>
> Then you would no longer be able to specify the font by the font name,
since
> you would have two fonts named "Tengwar Quenya".
>
> > you could use it in an XML
> > file by defining an entity, <!ENTITY hwesta "">. Now my
> > suggestion was the browser program which displays this file should
> > be able to look at the font information in the XML file, open the
> > font file and retrieve the names of all characters in it, so it can
> > show the "&hwesta;" character (and all other characters) without
> > needing a long list of ENTITY entries in the XML.
> >
> > Anyone else think this would be a good idea?
> >
> > Pim Blokland
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 12:33:01 EST