I know I said this before, but this time I'm serious.
I will no longer respond publicly to any post concerning William
Overington's proposed extensions of the kind of things that should be
encoded in Unicode. That is because I am convinced now that his
misinterpretation of the basic principles of Unicode, and the types of
entities that do and do not make sense for encoding, is willful and not
due to ignorance.
Nobody with the intelligence of a tree could possibly read the
character-glyph document and come away with the impression that font
styles, sizes, colors, etc. are "central" to the notion of what belongs
in character encoding. Intelligence is clearly not the problem here.
But, because I am not an ad hominem kind of guy, I will be happy to
discuss other topics related to (and appropriate to) Unicode that are
raised by William or anyone else. In my next message, I want to address
the "large corporate sponsor" angle that William, and others in the
past, have used to argue that Unicode is unresponsive to the needs of
low-end users.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 10:04:06 EDT