From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Marc Brugui=E8res?= ([email protected])
Date: Mon Oct 31 2005 - 10:09:19 CST
Kenneth Whistler ([email protected]) a �crit 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
>that matter.
[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 Brugui�res
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 12:47:08 CST