From: Gregg Reynolds (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Jun 19 2005 - 01:38:55 CDT
James Kass wrote:
> Gregg Reynolds writes that talking about whether or not any
> representation of plain text is plain or not is plain ridiculous.
> Agreed. It's pointless to talk about it when all one needs to do is
> to compare the representation of text against the Unicode glossary
> definitions of "plain text" and "rich text".
The unicode definition of "plain text" works for me; it's more or less
mathematical and allows us to avoid metaphysics. But you surely see
that the definition of "rich text" is hopelessly broken and inconsistent
with that of plain text, no?
>>Representation of text is not text.
> Text which is represented as text is text.
Yes, but its representation isn't. ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 19 2005 - 01:41:46 CDT