Doug Ewell wrote as follows.
>Nobody with the intelligence of a tree could possibly read the
>character-glyph document and come away with the impression that font
>styles, sizes, colors, etc. are "central" to the notion of what belongs
>in character encoding. Intelligence is clearly not the problem here.
Actually, I did not write that.
What I wrote was as follows.
quote of what I previously wrote
Courtyard codes and codes for chromatic fonts, in my opinion, fall within
the definition of character in Annex B of that document. This is not me
finding some definition tucked away obscurely, it is central. The
introduction section of the document states as follows.
This Technical Report is written for a reader who is familiar with the work
of SC 2 and SC 18. Readers without this background should first read Annex
B, "Characters" and Annex C, "Glyphs".
end quote of what I previously wrote
I have been referred to the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document about characters and
glyphs and yet no one seems willing to discuss the definition of character
that is clearly stated in that document, people just keep saying that markup
exists, as if the very existence of XML in some way precludes single code
point colour codes and single code point formatting codes and so on.
The quote of what I previously wrote is saying that I have not found that
definition tucked away obscurely, that definition is central to the ISO/IEC
TR 15285 document. That is, I am not trying to push my ideas for colour
codes through some obscure legal and technical loophole, I am saying that
they are entirely consistent with the definition of character in the ISO/IEC
TR 15285 document, where that definition is central to the ISO/IEC TR 15285
As you have already made your decision about my research and indeed about
me, then I am not going to try to convince you otherwise and this posting is
not intended to do so. I am merely answering a specific accusation as to my
ideas and my personality.
Unfortunately various responses to my research have been on other than the
scientific aspects of my research and unfortunately in human society that
type of response outweighs intellectual discussions on the facts, such as
the specific fact of the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285
document which no one responding to my posts seems willing to discuss.
I feel that if the definition of character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document
is considered, with the meanings of the words in that definition considered,
then scientific progress can be made. If people are simply going to
question my motives and my personality and not discuss the definition of
character in the ISO/IEC TR 15285 document, then that is just an example of
the way that human society unfortunately works, in that scientific ideas can
be dismissed without explanation by bringing in a questioning of the
personality of the person suggesting them.
9 July 2002
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 01:15:26 EDT