Use of tag characters in a private encoding - is it valid please?

[William_J_G Overington]

In the post
 
 
  
https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2024-May/010889.html
 
 
 
Erik Carvalhal Miller asked as follows.
  
 
 
> What would be the rationale for a nine-point sequence for your single 
> character? and an unusually arbitrary‐looking sequence at that?  
 
 
 
The rationale is that it is part of a larger encoding, that in normal 
use it would be entered into an email by selecting the meaning from a 
cascading menu, and decoded automatically at the receiving end. Encoding 
from a menu in one language and decoding and display into a different 
language, thereby enabling, in some particular circumstances, 
communication through the language barrier.
 
 
 
The encoding is explained in Chapter 2 and Chapter 6 of my second novel.
 
 
  
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~ngo/locse_novel2.htm
 
 
  
Yes, I know that it is a novel and that that is an unusual way to do 
things, but back in 2016 I could not make progress with my invention and 
as I could not start a research organization to develop my ideas I 
decided to imagine one and write about it. I completed what is now the 
first novel in February 2019, it having been intended to be a stand 
alone novel, but I missed writing it so I started writing a sequel, 
namely the second novel: the second novel is not yet complete.
 
 
 
> ... (after considering a proposal fulfilling the usual applicable 
> criteria, submitted in the prescribed manner), ...
 
 
 
The big problem here is that to get a document before the Unicode 
Technical Committee it must be accepted as in scope by the person or 
persons who act as gatekeeper(s) to the Current Document Register. Yet 
but even if my proposal document is allowed to go before the Committee 
what should be the usual applicable criteria for considering it? Should 
it be the same criteria as for things published long ago? Should I need 
to show the system already widely in use by many people with a Private 
Use encoding? Or should it be the same "looks good for the 
future" consideration used for emoji? Why not, on a sauce for pasta 
is sauce for rice basis.
 
 
 
If the policy is that I need to show the system already widely in use by 
many people with a Private Use encoding, then I have all but zero chance 
of that happening.
 
 
 
Yet if the Unicode Technical Committee were to decide to consider the 
invention on the basis of would this be of benefit to consumers in the 
future and let us have a go at testing it out and finding out if it will 
be good to encode it, and some of the Full Members each have some people 
at their research centres work on implementing it as a multi-business 
project, then great progress could be made.
 
 
 
William Overington
 
 
  
Tuesday 7 May 2024
  
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240507/dae43107/attachment.htm>