At 16:35 -0700 2002-08-13, Murray Sargent wrote: >Michael Everson said "Well then they [interlinear annotation characters] >oughtn't to have been encoded." > >Michael, you aren't an implementer.
I'm not the kind of implementor you are. I do implement things. :-) >When you implement things unambiguously, you may need internal code >points in your plain-text stream to attach higher-level protocols >(such as formatting properties) to. Such internal code points should >not be exported or imported. Excuse me, this makes no sense whatsoever. If your company, for instance, needed INTERNAL code points to attach to higher level protocols, why did you not use the Private Use Area? Have I got this wrong? You're saying your company did want to use them but wanted them in the non-PUA BMP so they could -- am I getting it right -- be INTERCHANGED. OK, that's fine, but is it the case that these are ONLY allowed to be used by your company? >From your point of view perhaps, they shouldn't have been encoded. But from >an implementation point of view, they're very handy. Unicode needs to >serve both purposes. For what use would Unicode be if you couldn't >implement it effectively? I'm saying I WANT to use these characters. They solve an apparent need of mine -- they would be very handy indeed, as I said in the Beijing meeting where they were discussed. I am mystified as to why people are telling me that I shouldn't because lots of applications may strip them out. I am deeply confused. -- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
