From: Mark Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 17:34:58 CDT
This argument does not hold water. Simply because some images appear in some
documents does not mean that they automatically should be represented as encoded
characters. Many images are not appropriate for use in plain text, or have too
small a user community. They should be represented as private use characters, or
as literal images. The Prince glyph, on-beyond-zebra characters, the images on
images on http://www.aperfectworld.org/animals.htm, etc. are in quite a number
of documents, but that doesn't mean that any of them necessarily qualify as
characters for encoding.
► शिष्यादिच्छेत्पराजयम् ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Starner" <email@example.com>
Sent: Thu, 2004 Jun 10 13:46
Subject: Re: Bantu click letters
> John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > We must be talking past one another somehow, but I don't understand how.
> > To represent the text as originally written, I need a digital representation
> > for each of the characters in it. Since all I want to do is reprint
> > the book -- I don't need to use the unusual characters in interchange --
> > the PUA and a commissioned font seem just perfect to me.
> But that doesn't work if you're reprinting to XML or HTML, where you can't
> rely upon a commissioned font being installed and correctly used. I'm not
> even sure you can trust a commissioned font to be installable on the operating
> systems of the next few decades.
> Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 17:36:57 CDT