William

It is interesting that emoji got going in application with Private Use Area encodings (plural) and they were not always mutually compatible.

That lack of compatibility is, of course, what prompted the development of the Unicode standard. I’m reminded of the old quip: “Engineers love standards, that’s why they have so many of them!”

Convince a vendor I have been told.

It is interesting that emoji got going in application with Private Use Area encodings (plural) and they were not always mutually compatible.

William

Do you have any ideas of how the invention can become implemented and in widespread use unless it is "forward pass" encoded into Unicode first.

No, I don’t. It’s clear that you don’t, either, and that’s exactly the problem Van Anderson wrote about:

A long forward pass of encoding in Unicode could work magnificently.

If my novel got made into a movie ...

If I win a million pounds on the Premium Bonds ...

I wonder which of those two has the greater probability of happening.

William

It looks to me as though the problem you’re up against here is that you believe

the issue of scope is a separate issue from the requirement of needing to prove widespread usage

whereas in practice these two issues aren’t really separate at all.

Perhaps that is the answer. Perhaps I am looking at it as a mathematician and they are looking at it from other viewpoints.

For example, I started off with conversations about the weather, on a sort of establish a minimal system that works with just a few sentences, then add another sentence and that works and makes the whole system better, and then so on recursively, in a sort of pure mathematics way. Perhaps others observed that and regarded it differently, having studied different subjects.

William

The thing is, unless I have missed something or forgotten, nobody has ever said why my ideas are out of scope, they just tell me that they are out of scope.

Sławomir Osipiuk explained the rationale rather pithily in his post to the Unicode Mailing List:

If you need it to be spelled out in more detail, look no further than Van Anderson’s observation in the High-Logic Font Forum thread:

It looks to me as though the problem you’re up against here is that you believe

whereas in practice these two issues aren’t really separate at all.

As a researcher I need to proceed on the basis of evidence and reasoning, not on just because someone, or even many people, say my ideas are out of scope.

Alas, a document intended for the Unicode Technical Committee cannot go into the Current Document Register if the gatekeeper decides that the topic is out of scope, even if no reason for that decision is stated.

From my viewpoint, I have devised a collection of symbols that can be regarded as the characters of Language Y which language has a language code of x-y and which language is such that each symbol in the language is a grammatically stand alone whole sentence within a stated context.

So Language Y is an auxiliary language for assisting communication through the language barrier. Yet an auxiliary language in a form different from Esperanto, another auxiliary language, as Esperanto is a complete language yet needs to be learned, whereas Language Y could, if set up with cascading menus and automated localization, be used without needing to learn it.

I appreciate that the issue of scope is a separate issue from the requirement of needing to prove widespread usage. Maybe sometime one or more of the companies that have students for the summer might give them the project of trying to implement my invention and add their own ideas and see what they produce.

Interestingly, a recent post, the most recent at the time of the writing of this note, links to a post from 2010 in the High-Logic forum.

https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unic … 10921.html

Yet thereby draws attention to the whole thread, some of which I have been reading.

This was before some developments that have occurred later.

Just because somebody provides advice does not oblige that advice to be followed.

William