At 07:52 +0100 2002-07-09, William Overington wrote:
>Courtyard codes and codes for chromatic fonts, in my opinion, fall within
>the definition of character in Annex B of that document.
Well, you are wrong. You can't just define anything you want to be a
control character. By some stretch of the imagination these could be
considered control characters. Certainly they are not data characters
as they have no content. But Doug Ewell was right: you are trying to
use control characters to manage font styles, sizes, colors, etc.
This has no place in character encoding -- and that is not
negotiable. Therefore your interpretation of the TR is wrong-headed.
>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 document.
No. They aren't. By a stretch of the imagination, perhaps. The TR is
an informative document. Written by a committee of people who tried
to make it clear. It is not a contract that you can read and
interpret as you please to the advantage of your own preconceived
>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
Because you are trying to use that definition to do something that
shouldn't be done with character codes.
>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.
Yes, that is right. That is entirely right. Therefore your
"scientific" ideas have no merit. They aren't interesting. They are a
waste of time. A waste of YOUR time. A waste of ours. A lot of very
smart people on this list have tried both patiently and not so
patiently to get this through to you. You seem to fancy yourself a
great, unappreciated inventor, whose inventions must be described in
exhaustive detail so the public can comprehend their greatness. Well,
sorry. We know what we're doing, we know why what you want to do is
wrong, and we've explained it. That has to be enough for you.
>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.
There is no "science" in your "research" and your ideas are not
scientific. Calling them that doesn't make them so.
I will not continue this thread any further, and I do not think I
will communicate with you again. Have a nice life, William. I do
honestly and sincerely hope your talents and energies will find their
proper home. It seems to me that this particular area of information
technology is not that place. Adieu.
-- Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 09 2002 - 11:06:17 EDT