From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc Brugui=E8res?= (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Oct 31 2005 - 10:09:19 CST
Kenneth Whistler (firstname.lastname@example.org) a écrit le 28 octobre 2005 :
> The convention of using rulings over strings of Latin letters
> to indicate higher values should be handled by styles, rather
> than by individual insertion of combining lines over single characters.
Why? (I can imagine a reason but please explain yourself.)
>Not everything seen in print or carved in stone or handwritten
>in manuscripts or otherwise committed to written form is appropriate
>for plain text representation in Unicode -- nor even in HTML, for
[Gregg Reybnold reasonably asked]
>> Arguably, the thousand multiplier has a plain-text meaning that should be
>> encodable as such.
[To which Kenneth Whistler proposed this strange answer :]
>Or..... arguably not.
Well, argue it then.
>This is getting to be a pretty tired issue on this list.
Perhaps because it is not clear or not clearly explained.
Why is an indication of a thousand multiplication less worthy of plain text encoding than a macron in other places.
>Not every semantic distinction carried in written form is appropriate
>for plain text, nor for encoding as a character.
Well, perhaps, but why not in general and why not here? A thousand multiplier, simply a macron, a simple enough and clear enough plain text sign looks to me.
What is your definition of plain text?
Right know your “arguably not” sounds as arbitrary as "those who know when something should be coded in plain text, those who do not know, don't know what to code in plain text."
-- Marc Bruguières
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 12:47:08 CST