From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 20:58:51 CST
Dean Snyder wrote:
> Wrong - if you encode only one of the disambiguated usages you have
> actually INCREASED the ambiguity of the original character; it now has
> not only its original ambiguous significance but ALSO a new context-bound
> unambiguous significance opposite the newly encoded character's
> significance. In addition, there is no way to represent all three usages
> (one ambiguous, two unambiguous) in the same plain text passage.
You lost me there. If I have <hyphen/minus> and <hyphen>, for example,
there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that the former is ambiguous
(bi-semous?) and the latter not. How does adding <hyphen> to the
repertoire change the meaning of <hyphen/minus>? Have I misunderstood
> So you end up precisely with Jony's scenario - if you cut and exchange a
> segment of some of this newly encoded and conformant text that happens to
> have only examples of the original character in it, you now have no
> context with which to decide how this character is to be interpreted
> downstream; because the SOLE disambiguation trigger in plain text is the
> PRESENCE of at least one of the newly encoded disambiguated characters.
Lost me again. Be patient. Are you saying that the presence of e.g.
<hyphen> in a string of text somehow affects the meaning of
<hyphen/minus>? Feel free to explain offline if you think others will
be annoyed by this. ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 20:58:49 CST