From: Jon Hanna (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 02 2005 - 17:09:24 CDT
Hans Aberg wrote:
> At 19:43 +0100 2005/06/02, Jon Hanna wrote:
>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>> It seems me that, when considering a new glyph, one should strive to
>>> figure if there is any semantic value to it; if not, it should
>>> probably not be added.
>> Hans, what the hell are you talking about?
> Sorry, I do not see what you are hinting at here.
That your suggestion has zero relevance to this list.
>> Seriously, have even read the Standard this list discusses?
You really should. It's one thing to ask questions about Unicode without
such background knowledge, another to suggest changes to it.
> For example, I twice pointed out to BS
> that he was wrong about the C++ standard, in a friendly and courteous
> manner, of course.
I can't claim such an accomplishment, though I did suggest an
alternative to a technique he wrote about. However, I *have* read that
> Since you view yourself better in this respect than
> principle designers of major computer languages, I suggest you show off
> your abilities a little more.
No, I merely think I have the basics down (I haven't read a few of the
annexes, but I don't opine about those).
-- Regards, Jon Hanna "All good quotes are eventually attributed to Benjamin Franklin" - Benjamin Franklin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 02 2005 - 17:11:13 CDT