From: Behnam (email@example.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2008 - 14:53:40 CDT
On 26-May-08, at 2:39 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> It's not my proposal, just one I described to you. I think that's
> what you meant.
Yes that's what I meant. I'm totally lost in this.
> It has faced resistance because it is stateful -- that is, it
> applies to an entire, open-ended chunk of text rather than just a
> single character or a small, fixed run of characters -- and the
> Unicode Consortium considers stateful mechanisms to be out of scope
> for a character encoding standard. There are other mechanisms like
> this, such as the Interlinear Annotation characters at U+FFF9
> through U+FFFB, and those are frowned upon as well.
Yes. David Starner mentioned that it was stateful and I didn't
> The problem is that in Unicode, there is no concept of "the
> paragraph encoding." There is simply a stream of characters. How
> they are formatted and interpreted as paragraphs is dependent on a
> higher-level protocol or application.
But I thought 'rtl' was applied to the paragraph.
> You are correct that the tag characters can be ignored in certain
> plain text contexts where no advantage can be taken of them. That
> was one of the rationales behind burying them in Plane 14, and that
> strategy was explicitly mentioned when the characters were introduced.
Oh well. Any other solution? This is the language we are talking
about and here is Unicode isn't it. Unicode can't bury language in
technicalities can it? All I'm asking is to identify what I'm writing
now as 'English'.
>> As I said, go ahead and use them if you like, but be aware they
>> are deprecated and there is probably nobody else using them. I
>> thought they were a great idea, and even I don't use them any more.
Not that solution! I always considered myself a simple user. But when
you say go ahead and use them, you put the meaning of 'user' to a
totally different level!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2008 - 14:56:34 CDT