From: James Kass (thunder-bird@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Jan 04 2009 - 01:13:32 CST
Doug Ewell wrote,
>Asmus Freytag <asmusf at ix dot netcom dot com> wrote:
>>
>> I simply follow the definition. See, for example the glossary:
>>
>> "/Compatibility Character. /
>> A character that would not have been encoded except for compatibility
>> and round-trip convertibility with other standards"
>
>This definition also appears in Section 2.3 (p. 23) of TUS 5.0, but the
>*very next sentence* says:
>
>"They are variants of characters that already have encodings as normal
>(that is, non-compatibility) characters in the Unicode Standard; as
>such, they are more properly referred to as compatibility variants."
This glossary definition may be considered an unhelpful
overgeneralization.
>I've been a huge and vocal supporter of the Unicode Standard for the
>past 16 years, back before most people had heard of it, and this is by
>far the most disappointed I have ever been in the Standard. This
>decision will come back to haunt Unicode again and again.
I didn't hear about Unicode until around 1997. I embraced
it at once. I've been working with computer plain-text
steadily since around 1984 and took my first programming
courses around 1975. A proposal to encode animated cartoons
in plain-text is flabbergasting.
Best regards,
James Kass
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2009 - 01:15:25 CST