Private Use areas (was: Re: Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was ...))

Mark E. Shoulson via Unicode unicode at
Mon Aug 20 19:04:34 CDT 2018

On 08/20/2018 03:12 PM, Mark Davis ☕️ via Unicode wrote:
> > ... some people who would call a PUA solution either batty
> > or crazy.
> I don't think it is either batty or crazy. People can certainly use 
> the PUA to interchange text (assuming that they have downloaded fonts 
> and keyboards or some other input method beforehand), and
> it
>  can definitely serve as a proof of concept
> . Plain symbols — with no interactions between them (like changing 
> shape with complex scripts), no combining/non-spacing marks, no case 
> mappings, and so on — are the best possible case for PUA.

It is kind of a bummer, though, that you can't experiment (easily? or at 
all?) in the PUA with scripts that have complex behavior, or even 
not-so-complex behavior like accents & combining marks, or RTL direction 
(here, also, am I speaking true?  Is there a block of RTL PUA also?  I 
guess there's always RLO, but meh.)  Still, maybe it doesn't really 
matter much: your special-purpose font can treat any codepoint any way 
it likes, right?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Unicode mailing list