On Saturday 10 November 2012, John Knightley john.knight...@gmail.com wrote:
Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is better
than the alternative of not using the PUA.
Yes. The Private Use Area is a very useful facility in that it allows
characters of one's own
William, I think you have a unreasonable idea of what a standard actually is.
You have already made a standard and published it - I've seen all the posts at
the FCP forum. All you have to do is let people use it. If a user community is
going to exchange data, they will do so, and it just plain
On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com:
However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems
in being implemented as a widespread system.
Wrong, this is what has been made
Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is
better than the alternative of not using the PUA.
Regards
John
On 10 Nov 2012 17:37, William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
wrote:
On Thursday 8 November 2012, Philippe Verdy verd...@wanadoo.fr wrote:
2012/11/8
2012/11/10 john knightley john.knight...@gmail.com:
Whilst using the PUA is far from perfect at the end of the day it is
better than the alternative of not using the PUA.
Regards
John
On 10 Nov 2012 17:37, William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com
wrote:
On Thursday 8 November
2012/11/9 Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com:
Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on
expected usage.
Currency symbols are a well known case for that, but there have been
instances of phonetic characters encoded in order to facilitate creation and
On 11/9/2012 7:14 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/11/9 Asmus Freytag asm...@ix.netcom.com:
Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded based on
expected usage. Currency symbols are a well known case for that, but there have
been instances of phonetic characters encoded
2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com:
However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems in
being implemented as a widespread system.
Wrong, this is what has been made during centuries if not millenium !
Initially a private use definition, which was
One key criteris for inclusion in Unicode is that a character or symbol be
in circulation. Whether these are hand written, printed or electronic. If
one creates a new a new character then one first must get others to use it,
this takes time.
John
On 8 Nov 2012 14:57, William_J_G Overington
I'm not sure I follow this analysis.
A./
On 11/8/2012 1:30 AM, Philippe Verdy wrote:
2012/11/8 William_J_G Overington wjgo_10...@btinternet.com:
However, an encoding using a Private Use Area encoding has great problems in
being implemented as a widespread system.
Wrong, this is what has
On 11/08/2012 01:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
... collect examples of these in print ...
Mark E. Shoulson m...@kli.org wrote:
We don't encode it would be nice/useful. We encode *characters*, glyphs that
people use (yes, I know I
On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
On 11/08/2012 01:48 AM, William_J_G Overington wrote:
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
... collect examples of these in print ...
Mark E. Shoulson m...@kli.org wrote:
We don't encode it would be nice/useful. We encode *characters*,
On 11/08/2012 09:00 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
On 11/8/2012 4:39 PM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
I stand by it: we don't encode what would be cool to have. We encode
what people *use*.
Actually, there are certain instances where characters are encoded
based on expected usage.
...
What these
Michael Everson ever...@evertype.com wrote:
... collect examples of these in print ...
Mark E. Shoulson m...@kli.org wrote:
We don't encode it would be nice/useful. We encode *characters*, glyphs
that people use (yes, I know I conflated glyphs and characters there.)
...
Unicode isn't a
14 matches
Mail list logo
