From: James Kass (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Jun 19 2005 - 02:01:01 CDT
Gregg Reynolds wrote,
> 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?
Surely I can see that the definition of rich text is inconsistent
with that of plain text. After all, if they weren't inconsistent,
they'd be the same thing and the glossary entry for "rich text"
could be changed to: 'see "plain text"'.
But, what's hopelessly broken about it?
> >>Representation of text is not text.
> > Text which is represented as text is text.
> Yes, but its representation isn't. ;)
I might have to ponder this one awhile...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 19 2005 - 02:02:51 CDT