Re: Encoded rendering instructions (was Unicode's Mandate)

From: Dean Snyder (
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 09:51:57 CST

  • Next message: Dean Snyder: "Re: Encoded rendering instructions (was Unicode's Mandate)"

    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

    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.


    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

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 10 2005 - 10:16:18 CST