Re: Encoding Personal Use Ideographs (was Re: Level of Unicode support required for various languages)

Ben Monroe wrote,

>No. My ID has U+9580 U+9F8D.
>As much as I have tried (and continue) to fix that, the character
><U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> can not be entered into a computer so is
>rejected. The one official exception that I am aware of is for a
>registered seal, which may be handled manually and does not
>necessarily need to be computer processed. That is precisely why I
>asked if it would be sufficient.

A registered seal might be viewed in the same light as
a registered logo.

When you say that the character <U+2FF5 U+9580 U+9F8D> can not
be entered into a computer, do you mean because it does not
exist as a character, or because U+2FF5 is not accepted by
the ID issuers?

If the latter, wouldn't the inclusion of the ideographic
description characters to the allowable set of I.D. characters
make sense?  There must be other people facing the same lack
of support.

>I tried PUA in the past.
>Most people could not be bothered to install the font.
>Also, many people are suspicious, for good reason, of attachments.
>It's more difficult than you may imagine to get strangers to install fonts.

Users of constructed scripts don't have the advantage of a
Unicode Standard, yet manage to exchange data nicely using
conventions such as provided by the ConScript Unicode 
Registry.  If enough users lack computer support for
their personal characters, what would be wrong with setting
up some kind of PUA registry for personal characters?
(One drawback may be that, if the allowable set of I.D.
characters excludes ideographic description characters,
then the set may well exclude PUA characters, too.)

(Which code point did you use?)

Best regards,

James Kass