On 04/27/2001 03:23:36 AM unicode-bounce wrote:
>From: "William Overington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> I have updated my suggestion. Here is the latest version for
discussion.
>
>Lets consider the fact that what you are looking for is summarized at the
>end of your message: "I hope to gain fairly widespread agreement within
the
>unicode user community." I submit that this very desire is a violation of
>the entire spirit of the PUA, which is about PRIVATE USE and thus
widespread
>acceptance is neither needed nor desired.
Nor possible. Not practically possible to get all potential 6G+ members of
the community to agree (or even a minute fraction), and even if that were
possible, not possible to know that they all agree (I'd guess it's only
possible among perhaps around 0.00001% of the potential community at best).
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You can attribute the frustration
>you are feeling as due to this single reason more than any other.
>
>Unicode, like any organization, can grow in response to real need. In
fact,
>it has done so in even core architectural ways in the past. But I would
tend
>to look at the way that the growth is being suggested here is not in the
>best interests of Unicode or the "Unicode user community."
>
>So actually, I have a better suggestion at this point. One that would meet
>the burden of the test that Rick McGowan has made and also one that would
>satisfy the crotchety folks like me who insist that this really not a
route
>that any of the fine minds on the Unicode List should even be considering.
>
>(What the unfine minds do is of course their own business, but I do not
>classify any of the people in this particular conversation as being in
that
>category!)
>
>Let us wait and find an ACTUAL example of a TRUE situation where a PUA
>encoding is needed that the existing mechanism is not enough. Let the
brave
>soul who has been forced by the circumstances of fate to deal with this
>complex issue come forward and explain how their circumstance and the
reason
>that the existing PUA mechanism which requires a mutual understanding and
a
>private agreement is so inadequate.
>
>No one in this group is UNREASONABLE. But I do think a lot more mindshare
is
>going to a problem that is THEORETICAL rather than real. And all of us can
>probably find useful ways to use Unicode as it stands and then as real
needs
>come up we can find ways to extend Unicode to meet those real needs. There
>are more than enough problems to solve that actually exist that it is
almost
>insulting that we are off inventing problems that we think might be
>important but have no clearcut case of need that is made.
>
>This will be my final plea here, as even though I do not classify myself
as
>one of those "fine minds" that I referred to earlier I do have many real
>problems with actual scripts that I have true customers for, and I think
>they deserve my attention much more than the problems that we are
concerned
>may exist.
>
>MichKa
>
>Michael Kaplan
>Trigeminal Software, Inc.
>http://www.trigeminal.com/
>
>
>
