<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">A “private agreement” can be as simple as one party saying, “Use [such-and-such] font to view this content,” and another party using that font to view the content. There doesn’t even need to be any direct
interaction between the two parties.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Unicode <unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org> on behalf of Erik Carvalhal Miller via Unicode <unicode@corp.unicode.org><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, April 30, 2024 at 9:29</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">PM<br>
<b>To: </b>William_J_G Overington <wjgo_10009@btinternet.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>unicode@corp.unicode.org <unicode@corp.unicode.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: Use of tag characters in a private encoding - is it valid please?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:13</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PM William_J_G Overington via Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> I consider that the phrase "private agreement" in The Unicode Standard is, well, not. the whole situation, as it is perfectly possible for on person to produce and publish a document declaring some meanings and/or glyphs. So while for anyone else to apply
those meanings and/or glyphs does imply at least a tacit, temporary, like watching a science fiction movie suspension of disbelief, sort of agreement, it is not the almost formal contractual situation that The Unicode Standard could be reasonably thought to
be writing about.<br>
><br>
> <a href="https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch23.pdf">https://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode15.0.0/ch23.pdf</a> page 23 of the PDF document<br>
<br>
The section you cite does not support the obligation of an “almost formal contractual situation”. One of Unicode</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">s online FAQ pages (<a href="https://www.unicode.org/faq/private_use.html">https://www.unicode.org/faq/private_use.html</a>)
has this to say:<br>
<br>
>> Q: What does "private agreement among cooperating parties" mean?<br>
>><br>
>> A "private agreement" simply refers to the fact that agreement about the interpretation of some set of private-use characters is done privately, outside the context of the standard. The Unicode Standard does not specify any particular interpretation for
any private-use character. There is no implication that a private agreement necessarily has any contractual or other legal status—it is simply an agreement between two or more parties about how a particular set of private-use characters should be interpreted.<br>
>><br>
>> Q: How would I define a private agreement?<br>
>><br>
>> One can share, or even publish, documentation containing particular assignments for private-use characters, their glyphs, and other relevant information about their interpretation. One can then ask others to use those private-use characters as documented.
One can create appropriate fonts and IMEs, or request that others do so.<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:13</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">PM William_J_G Overington via Unicode <<a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a>> wrote this
too:<br>
<br>
> A font with visible glyphs for tag characters will be helpful for composing sequences and could also be useful for finding the meaning of sequences that are not supported by any font available to the particular end user.<br>
> <br>
> > since in this case it</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">s not likely that the PUA character would even be recognized as an emoji, the fallback you saw is the best</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">case
scenario one can expect in the absence of a private</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">use agreement.<br>
> <br>
> Well, I was not restricting myself to emoji in applying the technique of using U+10FFFD followed by a sequence of tag characters of which the final one is a CANCEL TAG. Emoji sometimes, yet other things too.<br>
<br>
That same chapter you linked to, in §23.9 (“Tag Characters”), specifies two usages for tag characters: (1) the now</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">deprecated language tagging that
was their original purpose and (2) emoji tag sequences, as further specified in UTS #51 (as I brought up earlier). You began this thread by asking about validity; my reading is no, a non</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">emoji
private</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">use tag sequence is not valid according to the Standard. (Nevertheless, you might get it to function anyway.)<br>
<br>
It</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">s not clear why you would want to use tag sequences (emoji or otherwise). The 137,468 private</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">use
code points available are well suited for specialty characters. The fallback of having your specialty font(s) visibly display the tag characters of a (private</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">use)
well</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">formed but unrecognized tag sequence, though possibly useful, not only perverts the notion that tag characters are supposed to be invisible in
normal rendering but also sets up a needlessly inconsistent system. If it</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">s important and appropriate for end users to see a fallback display resembling
the Basic Latin repertoire, then why not use the Basic Latin characters, so that end users without the benefit of a special font can see them? If it</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">s
not appropriate or important, then why make the sequence characters visible in fallback at all (outside special modes such as composition or “show hidden”)? And if the sequence pieces aren</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">ʼ</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">t
to be seen, why use a sequence at all (especially an invalid one), instead of individual private</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria Math",serif">‐</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">use code points? The tag characters seem like a needless
complication.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>