Re: Purpose of plain text (WAS: Re: combining: half, double, triple et cetera ad infinitum)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:34 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz_at_gnu.org> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand why this argument tends to
> concentrate on claims that were never made in the first place.  The
> OP's intent was very clear even to a non-native English speaker such
> as myself.

It was sort of vague to me. In any case, you start a negative comment
talking about how Unicode is commercial, what do you expect, people
not to respond to that?

>> > However, it is probably the main objective. Who works for nothing except odd crazies like me?
>>
>> You'd be surprised how many people have volunteered their time and
>> expertise to help improve Unicode.
>
> Naena Guru didn't say anything to the contrary.  "Crazies" can be
> counted in thousands.  Again, the intent is quite clear and does not
> warrant such nitpicking.

Yes, it does. It was implying that Unicode was a commercial thing and
that people weren't working for it for free.

>> > When years back I asked why ligatures formed inside Notepad and not inside Word, I had the clear reply that it is owing to a business decision.
>>
>> That doesn't mean Unicode is broken.
>
> Naena Guru didn't say it was. The intent is quite clear: proprietary
> applications do or don't do something due to "business decisions" that
> don't necessarily have anything to do with the needs of the audience.

Proprietary? I can name a number of free software programs that did
the same thing. In any case, your interpretation of the intent makes
into a non-sequitor. One of the rules of interpreting human language
is that statements generally need to interpreted in the context of
their stating, in ways that makes them not non-sequitors.

-- 
Kie ekzistas vivo, ekzistas espero.