From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 03 2004 - 18:11:00 EST
> From: Peter Kirk [mailto:email@example.com]
> >New concept: filenames where the human-readable name is a user
> >preference depending on the individual's PUA assignments.
> Presumably these filenames are intended only for internal use...
> >There's progress for you.
> It is progress when a system does what you want it to do rather than
> deciding for you what you ought to be doing. You may not think what
> and his colleagues were doing was very sensible, but it obviously made
> sense to them, so what was the point of banning it?
I was not deriding what Dean and his colleagues are doing; I was not
trying to ban it. I was just imagining potential implications of using
PUA characters for filenames and making a joke.
Might we possibly find a sense of humour now? Or is my sense of humour
too warped for others' tastes?
Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
Microsoft Windows Division
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 03 2004 - 19:07:40 EST