I've only been on this list for some months, and I only came to it with my
own little project in mind, but it occurs to me, as I follow all these
threads, that Unicode might benefit from a more flexible process of
adaptation, of Unicodification. The model would be an asymptotic approach
to standar
Peter,
in principle, the idea of a provisional status is a useful concept
whenever one wants to "publish" something based on potentially doubtful
or possibly incomplete information. And you are correct, that, in
principle, such an approach could be most useful whenever there's no
possibility
I guess what I'm proposing is that the proposed allocations be implemented,
so that problems may be unearthed, even as the users accept that the
standard is still only provisional.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
> Peter,
>
> in principle, the idea of a provisional status i
On 11/16/2011 6:37 AM, Peter Cyrus wrote:
I guess what I'm proposing is that the proposed allocations be
implemented, so that problems may be unearthed, even as the users
accept that the standard is still only provisional.
Where "users" are programmers, such as is the case with certain
proper
Peter Cyrus wrote:
> In other words, people could propose a new script or character and
> rather than have it discussed before encoding and then encoded in
> permanence, with no possibility even to correct obvious errors as in
> U+FE18, instead it would be provisionally accepted but still subject
On 11/16/2011 07:25 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
Peter,
in principle, the idea of a provisional status is a useful concept
whenever one wants to "publish" something based on potentially doubtful
or possibly incomplete information. And you are correct, that, in
principle, such an approach could be mo
On 11/18/2011 1:30 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
How is this different from Named sequences, which are published
provisionally?
Named sequences aren't character properties.
When a newly encoded character is published in the standard, its code point,
its name, and dozens of other properties all ha
On 11/18/2011 1:30 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
On 11/16/2011 07:25 AM, Asmus Freytag wrote:
The whole reason that some aspects of character encoding are "write
once" (can never be changed) is to prevent such obsolete data in
documents.
How is this different from Named sequences, which ar
On 11/18/2011 3:06 PM, Ken Whistler wrote:
On 11/18/2011 1:30 PM, Karl Williamson wrote:
How is this different from Named sequences, which are published
provisionally?
Named sequences aren't character properties.
The provide information about characters in context - in that sense they
are s
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf
Of Doug Ewell
> This is one of the things the PUA is for. Unfortunately, it has become
> very popular to tell people to stay away from the PUA, that it is evil
> and unsuitable for any sort of interchange
That's an
able
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 12:28
To: unicode@unicode.org
Subject: RE: more flexible pipeline for new scripts and characters
From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On
Behalf Of Doug Ewell
This is one of the things the PUA is for. Unfortunately, it has
be
11 matches
Mail list logo
