On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, Keld J|rn Simonsen wrote:
> Glenn Adams writes:
> > Keld,
> > Why do you continue to mis-represent the facts. The Unicode
> > Standard *does not* have an unlimited repertoire. The repertoires of
> > Unicode and 10646 *are* identical. Let me ask something of you Keld,
> > have you ever read the Unicode standard? If so, then you apparently
> > have a learning disability; if not, then you have no business making
> > these statements.
> Well, Ken just told me that the Uncode repertoire was open.
> I admit that I have not read every page of the Unicode 2.0 standard,
> but I have actually studied the book fairly intesively in some
> aspects. I did try to look up the definition of "repertoire"
> but it was not in the index. And there is no "definitions" section.
> So apparantly there is no definition of "repertoire"
> in Unicode 2.0. How can you then say that it is so well defined?
> Have you read the book?
Keld - I think it does make absolutely no sense to say that the
repertoire of A and the repertoire of B is different if you use
different definitions for 'repertoire' when you apply this word
to A and when you apply this word to B.
What you may be able to say (given that 'repertoire', or any
other term, is indeed defined in both books) is that the term
'repertoire' in the two books is defined (and used) differently.
This is a statement about the meaning and usage of words.
What you also may be able to say is that the repertoire (in the
A sense) is the same for A and B, and that the repertoire (in
the B sense) is again the same for A and B. This is a statement
about facts, with established word usage.
Making statements about facts while not having established word
usage is a logic error that should be avoided.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:37 EDT