From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 12:16:56 CST
Leo Broukhis <leob at mailcom dot com> wrote:
>>> I understand that you meant this as an April 1 joke, but I would
>>> (passively) support these actually becoming encoded.
>> For what purpose? So people could write about the symbols themselves?
> E.g. to represent unambiguously the angular discrepancies of vision
> acuity in printed text, rather that referring to numerical angles
> which direction and origin can vary (cf. compass angless and cartesian
> plane angles).
This doesn't sound much like a plain-text application to me, but I've
been proven very wrong about symbols before.
-- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 01 2010 - 12:19:21 CST