On Wednesday 19 May 2010 I wrote as follows.
> I have put forward the idea of encoding a portable
> interpretable object code into Unicode.
>
> http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m01/0098.html
>
> http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2009-m03/0168.html
>
> There were also other posts in the thread in March 2009.
The complete post is available at the following web page.
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2010-m05/0041.html
The March 2009 thread contained twenty posts: it has the following title.
On the possibility of encoding a portable interpretable object code into Unicode
The twenty posts are available conveniently arranged at the following place.
http://www.unicode.org/mail-arch/unicode-ml/y2009-m03/thread.html#168
Twelve people posted in the thread.
I have now made some more progress in drafting a formal proposal for encoding.
I am thinking in terms of suggesting encoding into plane 12, with all of the
code points default ignorable, so that the code points are only used by
application packages that specifically have an option set to use them.
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/paper_draft_003.pdf
The document is a little under 46 kilobytes in size.
I am hoping to submit a document to the Unicode Technical Committee in the hope
that the Unicode Technical Committee will institute a public review.
In the meantime I am inviting readers who so choose to think about and to
comment on the idea.
I have been looking at the list of topics on the Call for Participation web
page for the Internationalization & Unicode Conference 34 conference.
http://www.unicodeconference.org/call_for_papers.htm
I am trying to consider which of those topic areas could be improved in the
future if a portable interpretable object code becomes encoded into Unicode.
Some readers might perhaps choose to consider that question. If so, I would be
interested to know of their conclusions if they choose to share them.
William Overington
29 May 2010
