From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:18:37 CDT
Sorry, forgot to set the "reply-to" on the original. Dang it!
attached mail follows:
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Ahmad Gharbeia <gharbeia at gmail dot com> wrote:
>>Yes, all the cases described as justifications for the need for glyph
>>colouring within normal typesetting.
>>This is how subjects like grammar, morphology, orthography, gender
>>endings, plural types, etc. were taught to us as children.
> Bold, italics, underlining, changes in font size and style, etc. are all
> used for pedagogical and other communicative purposes. But they are not
> plain text either.
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California
Sigh. Map is not territory. Representation of text is not text.
"Bold, italic, underlining, changes in font size and style, etc." have
nothink to do with encoding. You cannot possibly have the slightest
idea whether or not a text represented using "bold, italic, underlining,
changes in front size and style etc." is originally plain text or not.
Schnausers are not plain text either. Subatomic particles are not plain
text either. My belly button lint is not plain text either. Talking
about whether or not this or that representation of text is "plain" or
not is simply ridiculous.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 18 2005 - 18:20:29 CDT