> 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 ________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193 (408) 256-3148 fax: (408) 256-0799 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Unicode mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 08:54 Subject: Re: Custom fonts (was: Tolkien wanta-be) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pim Blokland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Unicode mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > > > > > > > > >
