From: Peter Constable (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 08:50:24 CDT
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Behalf Of D. Starner
> > > * A comparable discussion could appear involving Fraktur and Latin
> > characters
> > > and Chao and Chang.
> > I agree, but only somewhat...
> That was the point of Chao vs. Chang...
BTW, it occurred to me that your responses have focused on smaller
details of one usage scenario, and not the most relevant part of my
earlier message, viz.
So, saying that, while people have asked for plain-text distinction of
their text, they can accomplish what they need using markup, and it's
not unreasonable to ask them to do so...
That seems to me to be a greater level of inconvenience for the
anti-unification paleographers as the pro-unification paleographers
would face with distinct encodings (needing to fold character
distinctions), and probably for implementers wanting to support both as
well as for general users.
I followed you down the hole of dissecting that particular usage
scenario, so I'm equally to blame here. I think it would be more
productive to come back up a level: OK, you think the scenario I
provided wasn't reasonable, and may still think so in spite of my
feedback on your reasons. Do you think there are other reasonable
scenarios that support the same conclusion? the opposite conclusion? Are
reasonable and representative scenarios likely to support or refute my
comment that needing markup will be a greater inconvenience for the
non-unification proponents than would be character folding for the
pro-unification proponents? That's the important question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 28 2004 - 08:52:10 CDT