Re: Optometry symbols proposal

From: Kent Karlsson (kent.karlsson14@comhem.se)
Date: Thu Apr 01 2010 - 13:14:59 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "RE: Optometry symbols proposal"

    Den 2010-04-01 20.16, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>:

    > 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.

    Potential manualese:
    "If the subject has difficulty telling the difference between <open-up
    circle symbol> and <open-down circle symbol>, but can easily tell the
    difference between <open-left circle symbol> and <open-right circle symbol>,
    this indicates an approximate 90 astigmatism."
    Seems plain text enough for me...

        /kent k

    > --
    > 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 - 13:16:48 CST