Re: Keys. (derives from Re: Sequences of combining characters.)

From: William Overington (
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 07:24:27 EDT

  • Next message: William Overington: "Re: XML Primer (was Keys. (derives from Re: Sequences of combining characters.))"

    Peter Constable commented as follows.

    >On 09/26/2002 06:05:45 AM "William Overington" wrote:

    Dallas is 6 hours behind England on the clock.

    >I'm going to refrain from commenting on anything beyond the markup issues

    As you wish. Though did you stick to that even in the same sentence?

    >-- and I'm continuing with that only because it's an easy follow-on to what
    >I already wrote,

    As you wish.

    even though there is every indication that the sensibility
    >of it will be ignored.

    This did not appear to have meaning.

    I checked on the meaning of the word sensibility just to make sure.

    Did you intend to convey the meaning "the good sense of what I write" rather
    than "the sensibility of it"?

    Yet what indication whatsoever do you have that I ignore what you write?

    I do not always agree with you, yet where specific references to documents
    on the web are made I always attempt to obtain them and study the points you

    Certainly, I may not agree with you. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I do not
    agree and sometimes I am undecided in a matter. That surely is the nature
    of critical scholarship and research.

    >>A document would contain a sequence such as follows.
    >>U+2604 U+0302 U+20E3 12001 U+2460 London U+2604 U+0302 U+20E2
    >You could just as easily have used
    ><S C="12001">London</S>
    ><S C="12001" P1="London"/>
    >which are only slightly more verbose, but which follow a widely-implemented
    >standard that can be parsed by lots of existing software, for which there
    >are a large number of tools available, and which a vast number of
    >indivuals, businesses and other agencies have an interest in. Your markup
    >convention is completely proprietary,

    Thank you. That is excellent. I designed the comet circumflex key with the
    specific intention that it was creatively original whilst being expressible
    using a standard all-Unicode font.

    >it has no existing software support,
    >and nobody but you has any interest in it.

    You have no basis whatsoever for claiming that nobody other than me has any
    interest in it. Maybe you are not interested, maybe some people you know
    are not interested, yet I feel that it is unfair for you to make such a
    statement without evidence when writing from an established organization as
    that remark may prejudice people from taking an interest in helping to
    develop the idea because of a political dimension of going against the tide.
    You have your position and I feel that you should allow someone who does not
    have such a position an even-handed chance to put forward an idea and have
    it considered on its merits.

    >You tell me which one is more
    >likely to result in productive work and adoption by others.

    Likelihood of success and what actually happens are not the same thing. I
    do not know which is more likely as I do not know of what has happened
    already. Some people may have deleted the email, some may have read it and
    disregarded it, yet it is possible that some people might have tried to
    produce a comet circumflex button on the screen using an all-Unicode font
    and might be considering the possibilities of how the system could be
    applied or might even be writing an experimental software program which can
    take comet circumflex sequences and process them through a database.

    Look, for example, at The Respectfully Experiment in the Unicode mailing
    list archives. There a result was assumed and something different was
    observed in practice.

    >>that it is
    >>because I am an inventor, interested in pushing the envelope as to what is
    >>possible scientifically and technologically.

    Marco asked me a specific question, so I answered what he had asked.

    >Perhaps there is an list somewhere where you might
    >find greater interest in your ideas than here.

    That is unfair of you. You have chosen to respond to my posts and I have
    answered the questions which you asked.

    You even stated in the same post.


    I'm going to refrain from commenting on anything beyond the markup issues

    end quote

    The topic of keys generally which I have introduced is potentially a
    far-reaching development in the application of markup in Unicode based
    systems. My own comet circumflex system may be highly useful in business
    communications and distance education. I am happy to respond to questions
    and to consider documents which people suggest.

    >None of us here mind
    >invention, but I think most would believe that inventiveness is most
    >productive when building off the advancement of others rather than
    >reinventing wheels or widgets. XML exists, and it works.

    XML exists and it uses U+003C in a way that makes using U+003C with the
    meaning LESS-THAN SIGN in body text intermixed with markup sections awkward.
    That feature of XML may not matter for situations involving encoding simply
    literary works, yet for a comprehensive system which can include the U+003C
    character with the meaning LESS-THAN SIGN in body text and in markup
    parameters, it does not suit my need.

    >Beside the fact that your proposed markup convention is not a good idea, it
    >has nothing whatsoever to do with the development of Unicode. This
    >discussion really ought to be taken elsewhere.

    It is not a fact that my proposed markup convention, as you call it, is not
    a good idea. It may be your opinion and it might perhaps be the opinion of
    some other people. Yet my proposed markup convention, as you call it, is
    entirely within the rules, for keys generally, as in my original post, and
    for my comet circumflex key in particular.

    It has a lot to do with the development of Unicode. The Unicode Consortium
    has at least one document about using markup available on its website. You
    are not, as far as I aware, an officer of the Unicode Consortium, so that is
    just your opinion.

    Why should the discussion be taken elsewhere? It is about the application
    of Unicode to markup and of one particular application to language
    translation in a manner where Unicode could be widely used, as the comet
    circumflex system could be used with all of the languages which Unicode

    I respond to people who respond to my posts. If you or anyone else responds
    in the list making points where I feel that I want to respond, then I shall
    respond. You respond to posts.

    Actually, I was rather hoping that, with your specific interest in languages
    that you would have wished to have a try at using the comet circumflex
    system as one of the features of the comet circumflex system is that it
    could be used with minority languages as easily as with the major languages
    of the world.

    William Overington

    27 September 2002

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 08:14:52 EDT