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