From: Rajeev J Sebastian (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 02 2006 - 03:48:12 CST
On Sunday 02 April 2006 14:49, James Kass wrote:
> Rajeev J Sebastian wrote,
> > All in all, Whistler's comment that this is a
> > "dead horse" is particularly apt here.
> How did the horse die?
I'm sure that you are very knowledgeable about this stuff and so are a lot of
other people. However, this thread is really, as Kenneth Whistler says, a
"dead horse" in that it does not merit this level of discussion. I guess it
is the lack of ad hominem attacks that caused saraswati not to ban this
I don't want to jump into this thread and qualify whatever I say, because I'm
sure that I would have to re-qualify and re-qualify, ad infinitum. So, I'm
sorry, but I'm not interested in Unicode "fundamentalism", i.e., endlessly
discussing such minor details as this. (I'm not even sure that a mailing list
is even the correct forum for it. But the lack of alternatives is surely a
On the other hand, I'm glad that there are people, who are surely experts in
different fields, who do discuss this in such detail, since that fleshes out
any possible problems with the encoding.
However, this particular thread takes that principle too far.
Rajeev J Sebastian
PS: Please don't take too much offense at my remarks (just a little ;) ). I
think you guys are doing a good job on the list.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 02 2006 - 03:49:58 CST