From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2009 - 11:59:42 CST
Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
>> ...unless they are unsuited for plain text encoding because of their
>> very nature.
> Such as, for example, stateful controls, code-set shifting commands
> and other strange beasts, that would be difficult, if not impossible
> to handle as compatibility characters. I can easily conceive of more
> exotic examples, if that helps.
I find it intriguing that in the world of plain-text character encoding,
which has embraced a limited set of stateful controls at least since the
Baudot/Murray era, the notion of stateful controls is being dismissed
out of hand, while colored, animated drawings of baby chicks popping out
of their eggs are considered "compatibility characters."
(I almost wrote "chirping." Are audio-enabled characters on the
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 03 2009 - 12:01:23 CST