From: Ernest Cline (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 25 2004 - 13:27:32 CDT
> [Original Message]
> From: Michael Everson <email@example.com>
> At 12:22 -0400 2004-05-25, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> >On dominoes: I agree that there is no plain-text distinction between
> >domino orientations,
> Figure 1 shows a distinction being made.
> >and that it is appropriate to code each domino only once.
> I disagree.
> >... I also agree that a single convention such as
> >low-end-leftmost should be chosen so that CSS glyph rotation will
> >produce consistent results.
> CSS glyph rotation? I am astonished. We have not done that with
> the multitude of arrows we have encoded. Why would you want
> to make this into a script with complex rendering, John?
Because the difference in orientation in Figure 1 has no semantic
difference. The vertical orientation appears to have been chosen
as a way of emphasizing the double bones in Figure 1, but the
semantic content of the text remains the same if they were horizontal.
Rotating an arrow does cause a semantic difference, even when the
arrow is in plain text. Rotating a domino does not cause any
difference in meaning when used in plain text. Selecting a standard
orientation for a domino is not necessary for plain text, but it does
make it easier to do fancy text or non-linear layout.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 25 2004 - 13:28:07 CDT