From: Dean Snyder (dean.snyder@jhu.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 09:51:57 CST
Christopher Fynn wrote at 3:18 AM on Thursday, March 10, 2005:
>And encoding "damage indicators" wouldn't undermine the design goals,
>simplicity and robustness of Unicode?
Damage indicators are zero threat to the "simplicity and robustness of
Unicode"; the concept and implementation are rather simple and
straightforward.
With regard to undermining the "design goals of Unicode", that's a matter
of opinion. I think no; others think yes. I thought that would be the
case, which is, in fact, why I posed the question in the first place - to
get just the sort of feedback we are getting here from people with varied
expertise and viewpoints.
>If you have a manuscript with a big hole in it or a tear wouldn't you want
>to be able to indicate that kind of overall damage as well as damage to
>individual glyphs?
Missing text is a matter for markup (with the possible exception of my
suggestion for a parallel passage character); partially existing text,
I've suggested, is a matter for plain text.
Respectfully,
Dean A. Snyder
Assistant Research Scholar
Manager, Digital Hammurabi Project
Computer Science Department
Whiting School of Engineering
218C New Engineering Building
3400 North Charles Street
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland, USA 21218
office: 410 516-6850
cell: 717 817-4897
www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi/
http://users.adelphia.net/~deansnyder/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 10:16:18 CST