At 18:03 -0500 2002-03-19, Alain LaBontÈÝ wrote:
>[Alain] Writing it in text is not a problem if context is known.
>Impressionists in the XIXth Century, for example, already signed
>their paintings with a format such as « Claude Monet 89 »(we know it
>was 1889).
I think it exceptionally bad
A 21:39 2002-03-19 +, Michael Everson a écrit :
>At 06:32 +0900 2002-03-20, Dan Kogai wrote:
>>Y2K is a good example. It was not program's bug but that of data
>>representation.
>
>I don't understand why people are writing '02 and the like. Were they not
>paying attention?
[Alain] Writing
At 06:32 +0900 2002-03-20, Dan Kogai wrote:
>Y2K is a good example. It was not program's bug but that of data
>representation.
I don't understand why people are writing '02 and the like. Were they
not paying attention?
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com
On Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 12:17 , Suzanne M. Topping wrote:
>> As Kato pointed out, Unicode is more pro-programmers than
>> pro-users.
>
> This is true of any character set. Users are not at all concerned with
> how their script is stored. Most would prefer to never know about, hear
> about,
4 matches
Mail list logo
