> In view of the fact that some people are unwilling to let my
> ideas be discussed in this forum upon their academic merit but simply use an
> ad hominem attack almost every time I post (before many people can have the
> chance to sit down and, if they wish, have a serious read of my ideas), when
> it seems that their objection is really about the Unicode Consortium having
> included the word published in section 13.5 of chapter 13 of the Unicode
> specification, ...
Speaking here as an editor of the Unicode Standard, I do not
find the word "published" in section 13.5 of the book. Perhaps William
was thinking of the subheader "Promotion of Private-Use Characters".
Since -- despite the explicit text that follows in that section -- some
people seem to be getting the wrong idea about private-use character
assignments as a step towards standardization, it is quite likely that
the editorial committee will be rewriting that section for Unicode 4.0,
to provide further clarification for users.
> I feel
> that the fact that I am trying to use the Unicode specification as it exists
> rather than on some nudge nudge wink wink understanding of how some people
> feel that it should be interpreted is at the root of the problem.
If parts of the Unicode Standard are unclear and are leading to
misinterpretations or incompatible interpretations of how characters
should be used -- including private-use agreements for private-use
characters, then airing those issues is certainly germane to this
I think what a number of people on the list have been hinting -- or
openly stating -- is that prolixity is not a virtue on an email list
when trying to convey one's ideas.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Jun 20 2002 - 16:07:55 EDT