William Overington wrote:
> Actually I was trying in the posting upon which you comment
> to suggest that, even if people do not agree with me about
> having colour codes in a plain text file, they might
> perhaps consider as a separate issue the adding into regular
> Unicode of a zero width operator whose use would be
> to indicate that a character, such as U+1362, should be
> decorated chromatically.
Come on, William!!
Adding such a "zero width operator" *is* having color in plain text!
And adding such "zero width operators" *is* inserting mark up in plain text!
> >I interpret your post as one more lengthy repetition of your
> >opinion: differences between "plain text" and "rich text"
> should not exist:
> >they should be eliminated by incorporating the mark-up in
> the encoding.
> Actually, that is not my opinion.
No, I know. This is my explanation of my perception of your explanation of
your opinion. Now I am not sure what your perception of my explanation of my
perception of your explanation of your opinion might be.
Gentlemen, communication is such a difficult art!
> Perhaps some sort of consensus over nomenclature for three
> categories of
> text file could occur, namely plain text in the manner which
> you like it,
> plain text in the manner in which I like it and markup.
> Maybe plain text,
> enhanced text and markup would be suitable names. How do
> people feel about
> that please?
I would suggest "proletarian text", "middle-class text" and "capitalist
text", if I wasn't so scared that someone could take it seriously.
> It is unfortunately the case in discussions that when someone
> disagrees with
> an idea that is put forward that he or she is more likely to
> respond in
> public than if he or she agrees with an idea which is put
> forward, or has
> simply read about the idea and just notes it as an
> interesting possibility.
> This can have the effect that many people may agree with an
> idea or at least
> not be against it yet make no comment, perhaps giving an
> impression that an
> idea is not well received at large when in fact that is not
> necessarily the
Yes, definitely a difficult art.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 10:13:13 EDT