On 7/15/2011 2:23 AM, Karl Pentzlin wrote:
> Am Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 um 10:58 schrieb Asmus Freytag:
>
> AF> ... There appear to be a large number of symbols for which a
> AF> Unicode equivalent can be identified with great certainty -
> AF> and beyond that there seem to be characters for which such
> AF> an assignment is perhaps more tentative, because of minor
> AF> glyph differences, but still plausible. ...
> AF> ... Once you have carried the analysis to that stage ...
>
> My intent was to present the data to people who want to continue the
> work in this way, and to encourage the discussion of the Apple symbols
> within the Wingding/Webding discussion in line with the German NB request
> cited in my original mail.
You would serve this goal much better if, instead of rushing to simply
add raw data to the document pile, you had narrowed the issue down by
limiting this further to characters that need real scrutiny.
> Such analysis as Asmus requested, done with the appropriate scrutiny
> and thus requiring a considerable amount of time, in fact is the next
> logical step on this work. This, however, has not necessarily to be done
> by myself.
So, essentially you are dumping it on everyone.
At this early stage (raw list) a better approach would have been to look
for collaborators first and then collectively publish a document that
provides useful analysis.
The document registry should be limited to documents that can and should
be reviewed in committee. Raw data collection without or with limited
value added do not belong, in my view.
A./
PS: I feel strongly enough about this that I will not review the
document in its current stage.
Received on Fri Jul 15 2011 - 12:50:00 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 15 2011 - 12:50:00 CDT